Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

OFFENCES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES

Address for Return
showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, the results of the proceedings in magistrates' courts, and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during the year ended 31st December, 1955."—[Mr. Deedes.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Prescription Charges

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a further statement on his proposal to increase the charges for National Health prescriptions in view of the Government's policy of keeping prices and the cost of living steady.

The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): At present each person on a doctor's list pays on an average about 3¼d. per month for prescriptions; under the proposed alteration the figure will be about 5½d. per month.

Mr. Lewis: Is it not immoral of the Government to give tax reliefs to the Surtax-payer and the wealthy and to introduce a graduated tax upon the sick? Is it not a fact that the person who is sick the most and the longest will pay the biggest tax? Is that the way the Government are going to do business in the future?

Mr. Turton: That is not a fair deduction. The system will be very similar to that of the prescription charge as first announced in 1949. There is no great difference between them.

Sir F. Messer: It was limited to two years.

Mr. Fort: Will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any difference in principle between his proposal and that of the Labour Government?

Mr. Turton: There is no difference at all. We are doing it per item, and they did it per form.

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Health whether, when the new method of charging for prescriptions is introduced, exceptions can be made for certain illnesses which necessitate continued prescribing for several items over a long period.

Mr. Turton: No, Sir, but doctors will no doubt use their discretion about prescribing larger quantities in suitable cases; moreover, any person who on application to the National Assistance Board shows that he will suffer financial hardship in accordance with the Board's standards will be able to obtain a refund.

Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the first part of his Answer will mean that those who are likely to suffer more than others under this arrangement will be safeguarded?

Mr. Turton: Yes, that is the purpose of it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that there is growing evidence which all hon. Members on both sides of the House are having brought home to them—I had it in my constituency this week—that not only will these new regulations cause hardship, but that most people I have spoken to about them say they will be completely impracticable and will, in many ways, retard their good work? Is he aware that there is a universal desire that he should reconsider the regulations?

Mr. Turton: There is no evidence that the new regulations will be difficult to work. What will not be possible will be to make what are called "shopping lists", which, though comparatively rare, are a material factor.

Dr. Summerskill: Has the Minister estimated what the cost of administration will be for these new regulations and how that will be related to the extra revenue which will accrue?

Mr. Turton: If the right hon. Lady puts down a Question on that, I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. J. Hynd: When the right hon. Gentleman said that the House would be aware that applicants for National Assistance would be entitled to a refund, did he mean that he has gone back on his previous statement that there would be an extension of that provision to others?

Mr. Turton: There are some Questions to be answered later on the National Assistance provision and, perhaps, the hon. Member will await the Answers to them.

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange for colostomy patients to receive the four items permanently essential to their hygiene as one prescription for the purpose of payment under the new scheme.

Mr. Turton: Colostomy belts are supplied initially by the hospital where the patient has been treated. Replacements of the whole belt or parts thereof may be prescribed by a general practitioner and supplied through a chemist. Any number of parts prescribed at one time will count as one item only for charge.

Mrs. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that he has completely missed the point of the Question, which is that people suffering from this degree of hardship constantly need cotton wool, cellulose wadding, gauze and vaseline? Is he aware that it is not in their interest, nor in the interest of the community, that they should be forced to economise in anyway on these items? Does he realise that this will mean a 4s. payment every time these people have to buy those urgent necessities?

Mr. Turton: That is the type of case which will be dealt with in the way I suggested in an earlier reply. Where someone is chronically ill and periodically requires those four items it will be open to the prescribing doctor, if he thinks fit, to prescribe for a long period in advance.

Mrs. Jeger: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that doctors already prescribe for cases of this kind over a long period and that that does not alter the fact that prescription charges will be

multiplied by four? Can he not do that piece of arithmetic?

Mr. Turton: In that case, the hardship will be spread over a very long period of three months.

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange for distilled water, which is prescribed for use for injections of penicillin crystals or similar substances, to be regarded as part of the main prescription and not separately charged for.

Mr. Turton: Yes, Sir. Only one charge will be payable in these circumstances.

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Health what representations he has received from the British Medical Association about the proposed changes in prescription charges.

Mr. Turton: I have received representations against any prescription charges from the General Medical Services Committee and from the Chairman of Council of the Association.

Mrs. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to take any cognisance of those representations? Is he to ignore completely the views of the British Medical Association and other professional bodies in this matter?

Mr. Turton: Certainly I am going to take full cognisance of ail representations. The representative of the Association emphasised that the Association was opposed to prescription charges. He represented that the proposed method of extending the charges would result in hardship and asked for a reconsideration of the proposals of the Government. What the British Medical Association is opposed to is any prescription charge.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why on a matter of this kind he did not consult the organisations which represent the doctors, which I think he will agree are in a position to advise him on this matter?

Mr. Turton: On a question of charges—which is, as it were, a Budget question—they have never been consulted before a decision of the Government has been made—never in previous history.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large section of opinion in this House and in the country thinks he is making a correct and necessary attempt to save waste in public expenditure?

Mr. Turton: In 1949, when the Socialist Government first introduced this charge, the drug bill was £30 million and the average cost per form was 4s. 6d. Today, I regret to say, I estimate the gross cost of drugs at twice that amount, and the average cost per form is 8s. 9d.

Mr. Marquand: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to correct his statement that the Socialist Government introduced the prescription charge? Those were his words.

Mr. Turton: I said when they first introduced it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was introduced with the power in the Act—

Mr. Marquand: No.

Mr. Turton: I beg pardon; when powers were taken by the Socialist Government—and justified—to introduce a prescription charge.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health whether he will arrange that old-age and other pensioners, when making payment for their medicines, may, on presentation of their pension books, receive a receipt for the sum paid, which they can present to the National Assistance Board so that the charge may be refunded if their circumstances are found to warrant this.

Mr. Turton: Receipts are already issued on request for this purpose under existing arrangements. The Postmaster-General and the Minister of Labour and National Service are making arrangements under which, from 1st December next, refunds will be made, on request, to anyone receiving National Assistance on any day and not necessarily the day on which the assistance is paid.

Mr. Hastings: What about old-age pensioners who are not receiving National Assistance and who can just manage on their pensions in ordinary circumstances but who, when they receive a bill for three or four shillings extra, find themselves in real difficulty? Ought not something to be done for such people so that, without

loss of face and real difficulty, they can get that money back?

Mr. Turton: A new leaflet explaining the refund arrangements and including the form of application for persons not receiving National Assistance, which would be suitable for old-age pensioners whom the hon. Member has in mind and for others, is being supplied to chemists and dispensing doctors to be given to all persons who inquire.

Dr. Summerskill: That will involve a great deal of clerical work. Has the Minister estimated what the cost will be?

Mr. Turton: I thought that the right hon. Lady was putting down a Question about administrative expenses.

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister will recall that, when I put this question to him earlier, he said that there was a later Question dealing with the point, and I thought that this was it.

Mr. Turton: That is not very fair. The right hon. Lady asked me what the financial and administrative costs were, and I said that if she would put down a Question I would do my best to answer it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will not the hardship caused by these regulations and the general interference with the work of doctors be infinitely greater than the trivial saving which the Minister will make? Will he not reconsider the matter?

Mr. Turton: I very much hope not, but it is most important that I should do all I can to remove all sources of hardship.

Alcohol and Alcoholism (International Conference)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health why Her Majesty's Government were neither represented nor sent any message to the International Conference on Alcohol and Alcoholism, held this autumn at Istanbul on the invitation of the Turkish Government: and whether he is aware that this conference was attended by representatives of the French and many other Governments and of the United Nations World Health Organisation and International Labour Office, and that President Eisenhower, Mr. Nehru and the heads of other States sent messages of good will to it.

Mr. Turton: It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to be represented at congresses which are not primarily inter-governmental. I have no knowledge of the action taken by other Governments or of the messages that were sent.

Mr. Hastings: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that convictions for drunkenness in this country last year show that they have been increasing especially rapidly in the case of young people? Cannot something be learnt from the experience of other countries in the solution of this admittedly difficult problem?

Mr. Turton: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The normal machinery for discussion between Governments on such matters is provided by the World Health Organisation, of which this country is a member.

Dr. Summerskill: How many dipsomaniacs are having institutional care?

Mr. Turton: If the right hon. Lady will put the question down, I shall be very glad to give her a reply.

Dental Students

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health how many unfilled places in the dental schools of this country exist at present; and, in view of the shortage of dental surgeons which is likely to increase, what steps he is taking to ensure that such vacant places are filled without delay.

Mr. Turton: I am having inquiries made to find out the extent to which there may be unfilled places in some of the dental schools. From inquiries so far made, it seems probable that only one school still has a few vacancies. The deans of dental schools have been asked to do all they can to accommodate students.

Mr. Hastings: If the figure, which the right hon. Gentleman suggests is correct—and I have not the slightest doubt that it is—is it not clear that the number of dental students in training will in no way provide sufficient qualified dentists for the needs of the country in a few years? Does he not feel it is important to try to obtain places for the training of dentists, by providing dental schools or in some other way?

Mr. Turton: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that I am only giving the figures for England and not for Scotland. As he knows, there is an interchange of students between England and Scotland. But I am aware of the general position. The McNair Committee has made interesting observations upon it and at present they are being studied.

Lung Cancer (Smoking)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Health what further evidence he has received about the connection between smoking and lung cancer: and what action he is taking thereon.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the further results of research by Messrs. Doll and Hill, as published by the British Medical Association, into the mortality of smokers and non-smokers from lung cancer, details of which are in his possession; and whether, as this research, based on a sample of 40,000 people, now shows a death rate from lung cancer among heavy smokers of 20 to 40 times that of non-smokers, he will now revise his decision not to institute a national campaign of information on the dangers of heavy cigarette smoking.

Mr. Turton: A recent paper by Professor Bradford Hill and Dr. Doll confirms the statistical association between smoking and lung cancer, about which I made a statement in the House on 7th May. I will ensure that the public are kept informed of all relevant information as and when it becomes available but, I do not consider that a campaign such as the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) suggests would be at present appropriate.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Now that evidence is clearly piling up to show that smoking and lung cancer are connected, has not the time come for the Minister officially to sponsor a nation-wide campaign in schools and through local health authorities drawing attention to the menace to health of spending £800 million a year on smoking? Surely this state of affairs cannot be tolerated much longer?

Mr. Turton: What is done in the schools is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, who is, in fact, including in his new handbook


on Health Education, which contains suggestions for teachers, a passage on the possible dangers associated with smoking. This is a very important paper by Dr. Doll and Professor Bradford Hill, and I am anxious to see that it gets full publicity; but it only confirms the facts previously known and mentioned on 7th May.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the fact that the Minister has said that the particular paper in the British Medical Journal of 10th November, which I presume the Minister has read, confirms these facts, is he still not prepared to take any action? How can he reconcile that with his previous statement when he suggested that the facts had not been confirmed, and can he say that his statement this afternoon is directly related to the advice which he has received from the medical division of his Department?

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Lady is well aware that it is never the practice in the House to disclose advice given by departmental officials, and therefore it would be improper for me to reply to that question. I am not quite certain to what the right hon. Lady was referring when she stated that I had said that the evidence had not been confirmed. What we have always said is that no scientific proof of the connection has yet been found. It may well be that it will be some time before that evidence comes. What is happening is that statistical evidence is piling up to show a connection between lung cancer and heavy cigarette smoking.

Mr. Fort: In view of the anxiety which this has aroused so widely in this country, would my right hon. Friend consider referring the matter to the Medical Research Council, so that the views not only of Professor Hill and Dr. Doll can be expressed but other medical scientists can examine it and report for the benefit of us all?

Mr. Turton: I will consider that, but I think that the Medical Research Council is well aware of the research at present going on.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Life-Saving Drugs

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health what consideration he has given to the list of life-saving drugs, combined with the appropriate diseases for which they are a recognised cure, submitted to him by the hon. Member for Carlisle; and if he will make arrangements for these drugs to be available free to all patients provided that they are prescribed for their appropriate diseases, whether by National Health Service or by private doctors.

Mr. Turton: I have considered this list, but I fear that I am unable to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Dr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at a recent test made by a London chemist such prescriptions as these came to slightly less than 5 per cent. of the total? While I appreciate the difficulties, will he keep this suggestion under review both for National Health and for private patients?

Mr. Hastings: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is considerable divergence of opinion between those who ought to know as to what are life-saving drugs and when they ought to be used?

Mr. Turton: That is why I am unable to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion. Under existing legislation, a doctor must order any drugs necessary for treatment, and provision of free drugs for some conditions and not others would be most difficult to justify. It would really mean that I would be infringing the doctor's freedom to prescribe whatever is necessary.

Sir F. Messer: Is it not true to say that drugs for V.D. are quite free?

Food Hygiene (Refrigeration)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Food Hygiene Regulations which have recently come into force make refrigeration a virtual necessity for healthy catering; that the present hire-purchase restrictions and high rate of Purchase Tax on refrigerators constitute a strain on the resources of smaller hotels and boarding houses; and what steps are being taken to remedy this situation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): Refrigeration is not specifically required by the Regulations, though artificially cooled storage may in some circumstances be desirable or necessary. The questions of hire-purchase restrictions and Purchase Tax are matters for my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respectively.

Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Lady aware that this country has fewer refrigerators installed per head of the population than almost any other country in Western Europe, and should not financial and health policy be directed towards encouraging the use of refrigerators?

Doctors (Sale of House)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health what are the criteria by which the Medical Practices Committee judge the value of a doctor's house, when asked to give a certificate under the provisions of Section 35 (9) of the National Health Service Act as to whether they are satisfied that the transaction for its sale does not involve the goodwill of a medical practice.

Mr. Turton: The Committee decides whether or not the consideration for the sale, letting or other disposition of the house is substantially in excess of the consideration which might reasonably have been expected if the premises had not previously been used for the purposes of a medical practice; this criterion is laid down in Section 35 (3) of the Act.

Dr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent case of Dr. E. J. King who suffered substantial loss owing to the valuation of the house in his practice at Cleator Moor, Cumberland, as fixed by the Committee, being controverted by subsequent High Court decision? What explanation can he give of two different values being fixed for the same house? Will he endeavour to see that this Committee gives greater care and consideration to all the aspects of its duties in this respect, particularly in cases where the price is in dispute?

Mr. Turton: I am aware of the case of which my hon. Friend has sent me details. It is quite untrue to say that the High Court controverted the decision of

the Medical Practices Committee. The Medical Practices Committee said that it was not satisfied that the price was not above the ordinary market price. The High Court was dealing with quite a different aspect of the matter and, therefore, it was not a case of one decision controverting the other.

Immigrants (Tuberculosis)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health what assistance and advice in this country is made available to immigrants from Eire and the Commonwealth countries to protect them from infection from pulmonary tuberculosis; and what form of collaboration has been agreed with the health authority in Eire.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The assistance and advice available to the people of this country is also available to these immigrants. The Department's officers maintain close contact with the health authorities in Eire, and with the consent of patients detailed clinical information is freely exchanged with medical officers there.

Dr. Stross: Can the hon. Lady tell the House whether welfare officers have been appointed specifically for these cases in certain areas, such as Paddington and Liverpool, where these people mostly tend to concentrate?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: They would come under the general services of the welfare officers for those areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Mrs. Harriet Thornton

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health why a box of important documents taken by Mrs. Harriet Thornton to Cane Hill Mental Hospital was allowed to remain in a ward for three and a half years despite correspondence on the subject from the official solicitor appointed to look after Mrs. Thornton's affairs; and, in view of the fact that this is a breach of the lunacy law, what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Turton: My information is that Mrs. Thornton did not bring the box with her on admission, and it was therefore not included in the inventory of her belongings. Later she asked the ward sister to put it in the ward store room


saying that it contained private letters; and she did not mention it when the medical superintendent subsequently asked her about the whereabouts of certain documents required by the official solicitor. She did not ask for it until after her discharge, when after a search it was found still locked away. Owing to the lapse of time the box had been overlooked, but I am not aware that there was any breach of the law.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that this lady, when she was forcibly taken to a mental home, took these important documents with her? When persons are certified, surely the authorities want to know what certified patients are taking into mental homes, and is not there some degree of slackness if they were unaware that these documents were there the whole of the time?

Mr. Turton: I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension? She did bring in certain documents on her admission. They were included in the inventory, and in due course those wanted by the official solicitor were handed to him. The other documents in this box were brought in later, I am informed, by a visitor.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health (1) under what authority the Cane Hill Mental Hospital Management Committee asked for and received from the official solicitor acting on behalf of Mrs. Harriet Thornton payment of money from her estate whilst she was still certified and a National Health Service patient;
(2) why an approach was not made by the hospital management committee to the husband of Mrs. Thornton for payment towards her maintenance whilst in the care of the Cane Hill Mental Hospital.

Mr. Turton: While this patient was in the hospital her maintenance was the financial responsibility of the management committee. An order made under the Lunacy Act, 1890, appointing the official solicitor receiver of her estate provided for the payment of £39 a year for extra comforts, which she duly received. When she was granted leave on trial and went to the after-care home, the committee made an allowance towards the cost as they have discretion to do under Section 55 of the Lunacy

Act, 1890. They neither requested nor received payment for her maintenance from her estate, and they were not concerned with any liability of her husband to contribute.

Mr. Dodds: This is a fantastic state of affairs Is the Minister saying that the official solicitor was not asked that money should be paid towards her maintenance and that the official solicitor did not pay that money and that it is there in her estate, and that her husband, who was responsible for getting her put away in this place, was not asked to pay one penny piece? Will the Minister have another look into this matter, because all the evidence indicates that he has been bamboozled by the reports he is getting?

Mr. Turton: If the hon. Gentleman studies the Answer, which I am afraid was very long, he will see quite clearly what the position was and that nothing wrong was done. The procedure for ensuring that the husband pays for the wife's maintenance in a mental hospital is through the matrimonial court

Mr. Dodds: Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

St. Luke's Hospital, Rugby (Mechanical Stokers)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now able to make a statement regarding the installation of mechanical stoking boilers in the St. Luke's Hospital, Rugby.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is informed that the regional board has placed the order for this work.

Mr. Johnson: May I say to the hon. Lady that my long-suffering constituents will be most happy about this decision? May I offer her their thanks?

Voluntary Patients (Certification)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health what record he keeps of patients who enter hospital as voluntary patients and who are subsequently certified while in hospital; and what is the number of such patients during the last most convenient year.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Records for England and Wales are kept by the Registrar-General. In 1954, the latest year for which figures are available, 576 persons who entered as voluntary patients were subsequently certified whilst in hospital, representing 1·12 per cent. of total voluntary admissions.

Dr. Johnson: Will my hon. Friend take such steps as are possible to see that this figure is reduced to an absolute minimum so that voluntary patients may have no feeling of apprehension about being certified when they enter hospital?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I think the recently published figures, showing that the number of voluntary patients has gone up from 45 per cent. to 75 per cent., show very much that, so far as possible, we have voluntary rather than certified patients.

Mr. Hastings: Will the hon. Lady also keep in mind the need of the public to be protected from dangerous persons?

Mr. F. Harris: Will my hon. Friend say whether such people are certified by one doctor only, or is it required that more than one doctor should certify them?

Dental Hospital, Birmingham

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Health when the plans for a new dental hospital were forwarded to him by the United Birmingham Hospitals Board; and what modifications of the plans have been suggested by him.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Sketch plans were sent on 3rd July, 1956; the modifications suggested to the board of governors consist of a proposal to reduce the size of the building with a view to reducing cost, and a number of detailed comments mainly of a technical nature.

Mr. Yates: Is it reasonable, after plans have been considered for about two years, that the Ministry should hold up performance plans on the grounds of cost? Will the hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend to take steps, when he visits Birmingham this week—as I am pleased to see he is to do—to see that no obstacle is placed in the way of the completion of this hospital at the earliest practicable moment?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I have every desire to see that it is built at the first practicable moment, and my right hon. Friend has said that he will be willing to look at this matter when he goes to Birmingham. However, it is fair to point out that when the estimate was first submitted we were given a figure of £600,000. Now that the plans have come in, the sum of £1,256,000 is wanted, which is more than double.

Deaths (Notification of Relatives)

Miss Bacon: asked the Minister of Health what steps were taken to trace the brother and other relatives living in Leeds, of Mr. E. Murtagh, who died in St. Luke's Hospital, Bradford, on 10th October; and if the Bradford police were informed, or inquiries made at 23, North Street, Bradford, from where the deceased was taken by ambulance, or his last place of work and through that his trade union.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: According to my right hon. Friend's information, this patient had more than once clearly stated that he had no relatives, and none of the steps mentioned was therefore taken

Miss Bacon: Does the hon. Lady realise that it is very serious indeed if, when a person goes into hospital, dies in hospital and is buried by the authorities, no steps whatever are taken to trace relatives? Is she further aware that this matter was brought to my notice by the man's trade union secretary, who is very concerned lest his many members doing casual work in different parts of the county have this kind of thing happen?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In fairness to the hospital authorities, the hon. Lady should know that not only on this but on previous occasions when the same patient went into hospital he emphatically stated that he had no relatives. There was the same record at the lodging house where he had stayed. During the time he was ill he was visited by a Catholic priest, and a doctor asked him about relatives. He emphatically proclaimed that he had no relatives and, in those circumstances, the hospital cannot be blamed.

Miss Bacon: asked the Minister of Health what administrative arrangements exist for informing relatives of the death of a person in hospital; and if he will give an assurance that these arrangements


are put into operation, even if the deceased, through illness or stress of entering hospital, does not give the name and address of next of kin.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: It is the normal practice of hospitals to ascertain the next of kin of patients where possible and to inform them of deaths. I have no reason to suspect any inadequacy in the arrangements for getting the information when the patient is unable to answer questions.

Miss Bacon: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Answers to this and the previous Question have been entirely contradictory? In the case I mentioned in Question No. 23 no steps whatever were taken to trace the man's relatives who lived only eight miles away. If these administrative arrangements are put into operation, why was that not done in the case of Mr. Murtagh?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: When the hon. Lady reads the Answers tomorrow, she will see that they are not contradictory. My last phrase was, "when the patient is unable to answer questions." In this case the patient was repeatedly asked and repeatedly affirmed that he had no living relatives. Where patients are not in a condition to give information about themselves, the hospital authorities endeavour to ascertain the next of kin and use the services of the police for so doing.

Miss Bacon: Is the hon. Lady not aware that when a man goes into hospital and is likely to die within a few days—as happened in this case—because of going into hospital, or illness, or something of that kind, he may give wrong information? Will she alter the regulations to see that some action is taken to find relatives?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: In this case the patient walked out of the ambulance unattended into the hospital and was perfectly capable of giving information about himself. The hon. Lady must appreciate that it is very difficult to trace people when one has no sources from which to work and when a patient insists that he has no living relatives.

Tuberculosis and Pneumoconiosis, Stoke-on-Trent (Treatment)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health how many beds are available in Stoke-on-Trent for the treatment of pulmonary

tuberculosis; and whether sufferers from pneumoconiosis and other disease of the lungs are now to have additional beds provided in the former fever hospital at Bucknell.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am informed by the regional hospital board that there are 46 beds at the City General Hospital, and that 24 additional beds will become available this week at Bucknell Hospital solely for persons suffering from pneumoconiosis.

Dr. Stross: May I thank the hon. Lady for that Answer?

Part-time Consultants

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health what limitations are placed, under his regulations, upon the entitlement of part-time consultants to payment for travelling-time and travelling expenses to and from hospitals.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: As the rules which apply are necessarily rather long and complicated, I am sending the hon. Member a copy of them.

Mr. Robinson: Would the hon. Lady not agree that the arrangements are also rather generous, to say the least of it? Is it not possible for a doctor to have a consultant appointment in London and live in the north of Scotland and then claim travelling time and travelling expenses involved in getting to the hospital?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The revision of the present arrangements is under consideration by the Medical Whitley Council at the moment. I would rather not add anything to that.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health what is his policy in regard to the acceptance by part-time consultants of sessional contracts in excess of nine-and-a-half sessions per week.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Sessional contracts must be entirely governed by the amount of work that can be undertaken by the individual part-time officers concerned.

Mr. Robinson: Is the hon. Lady aware that there are consultants who are undertaking contracts about double that of the theoretical maximum for part-time consultants? Does that not mean that not only is the work not done properly,


but also that younger consultants are being done out of appointments to which they would otherwise have access?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: While it is true that terms and conditions of service of hospital medical staff do not prohibit part-time medical consultants being employed for a specific number of sessions or hours per week, they also provide that however many hours weekly a part-time consultant is employed he may not be paid more than nine-and-a-half elevenths of the whole-time rate.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL RESEARCH

Cancer

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he will publish the amount of the grant which the Government has made in the latest five years, showing each year separately, to the Cancer Research Organisation.

Mr. Turton: I understand that the hon. Member has in mind the British Empire Cancer Campaign. This organisation is supported entirely by voluntary contributions and receives no grant from the Government. I should add that there is, of course, substantial Government expenditure on cancer research through the Medical Research Council which cooperates closely with all voluntary organisations concerned with the problem.

Mr. Jones: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this organisation is doing a very useful and valuable job and ought to be encouraged? Is not the best way of encouraging it to spend more of its own money to give some assistance from Government funds?

Mr. Turton: I know this organisation is doing most valuable work, but I do not believe that it would welcome a Government grant. I think the present system, whereby the Medical Research Council works very closely with voluntary organisations, is far better.

Mr. Jones: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a communication I have received from this organisation asking for this to be done, will he change his mind?

Mr. Turton: I should be most inter-tested to see the communication.

Mental Disorder

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what steps he is taking to stimulate research into mental disorder and to encourage the entry of research workers, both medical and nonmedical, into this field.

Mr. Turton: The Medical Research Council is taking every opportunity of promoting further research on mental Health, and during the past 18 months a survey of existing projects in this field has been carried out by the Council with the advice of the Clinical Research Board. Arrangements for the future support of these projects, and of other research on mental health, are now being made in consultation with my Department and the hospital authorities concerned. In addition, the Council has a scheme for the award of scholarships and fellowships for training in research methods which is open to both medical and non-medical workers in this field.

Mr. Robinson: While welcoming that small step forward, might I ask the Minister whether he ought not to look beyond the Medical Research Council for adequate work in this field? Will he take steps to encourage the introduction into mental hospitals of clinical research teams to take advantage of the wide clinical field for research which is available there?

Mr. Turton: Apart from the work of the Medical Research Council, work estimated at about £70,000 a year has been carried on under the National Health Service. That work will be taken over in due course by the Medical Research Council, and that will entail the setting up of at least two new units by the Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (TRIPARTITE DECLARATION)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the terms of the most recent communication from Her Majesty's Government to the United States of America in regard to the operation of the Tripartite Declaration.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Commander Allan Noble): As my right hon. and learned Friend told the


House on 31st October, there were discussions with the United States and France about the Tripartite Declaration on 28th and 29th October. Since they were confidential, I am not prepared to disclose their nature.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister confirm or deny the statement in the New York Times that Her Majesty's Government informed the American Government that they would not in any way hold themselves bound by the Tripartite Declaration and that from now on the Declaration was abrogated?

Commander Noble: I am afraid I cannot confirm or deny what the hon. Member has said. I have nothing to add to my original answer.

Mr. Robens: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the Tripartite Declaration still remains the basis of the Government's policy in the Middle East?

Commander Noble: I am answering a Question on that subject later.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL (DISPUTE)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now arrange to have referred to the International Court at The Hague, as a dispute for legal settlement, the action of President Nasser of Egypt in July last in nationalising the Suez Canal.

Commander Noble: The wider issue of a Suez Canal settlement is now before the United Nations. I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose at this stage to try to go to the International Court on the narrower issue of the legality of Colonel Nasser's action. Our primary purpose has been and must be to secure a just and workable settlement for the future.

Mr. Lewis: While I appreciate that at the moment it might not be opportune, if the Government had some doubts as to the legality of the action of the Egyptian Government, why did they not refer the matter to the International Court before sending in our troops? Would it not have been a better way than sacrificing men's lives, munitions and money in Egypt?

Commander Noble: That is a hypothetical question. Our purpose in regard

to the Canal is to prevent it from coming under the political control of any one country. This principle has now been endorsed by the United Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAGDAD PACT (COUNCIL MEETING)

Mr. Benn: asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the next meeting of the Bagdad Pact Powers will be held; and if he will make a statement of policy on this matter.

Commander Noble: The Bagdad Pact Council at its last ministerial meeting decided that the next meeting at ministerial level should be held in Karachi in January, 1957. The precise date of the meeting has not yet been fixed. Her Majesty's Government consider the Bagdad Pact has a vital part to play in the security and prosperity of the Middle East region and will continue to give if their fullest support.

Mr. Benn: Would the Minister of State comment on the Iraqi attitude towards British aggression in Egypt, and will he tell the House whether he still—[Interruption.]—proposes to supply arms to the Iraqi Government in the present situation?

Commander Noble: I do not think the Iraqi attitude is related to this Question about the Bagdad Pact. We shall continue to look at the question of arms for Iraq having regard to the situation in the whole area.

Mr. Daines: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Billericay in order in calling my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) "Nasser's little lackey"?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: I am very glad that I did not hear that observation. Hon. Members must not make such observations about each other. It leads only to noise and disorder and prevents the carrying on of business.

Mr. Benn: Further to the point of order. Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that all remarks made in the House are addressed to the Chair, and would you yourself not take action in such an instance?

Mr. Speaker: If I thought any remark of that character were addressed to me, I certainly should.

Mr. Braine: Further to the point of order. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the remark was in no way directed to the Chair, for which I have the utmost respect.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Further to the point of order. From the intervention by the hon. Member, it is apparent that the hon. Member admits that he used that term about my hon. Friend.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Griffiths: I gather from the hon. Member that he admits using the term stated. Will you now, Mr. Speaker, ask him to withdraw it?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that those words are in the list of forbidden words, and in the interest of free speech I am not anxious to extend the list further. If I add these words to the list now, that will hold for the future. However, I do counsel the House in this matter not to have recourse to observations which are really in themselves of an abusive character. Hon. Members should not abuse each other. They should regard each other as actuated by the same honourable motives, and, therefore, these things should never be said. I cannot rule them exactly out of order.

Mr. Benn: With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, I deeply resent that you should have said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in answer to my earlier point that, had the remark been addressed to you, you would have resented it; but that you did not resent it when it was addressed to me.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member feels any resentment against me, he must take the proper form for expressing it. At the same time, there are many remarks which can be addressed by hon. Members to each other which would be grossly out of order if addressed to the Chair.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do not the remarks of the hon. Member for Billericay merely mean that his resemblance to Sir Oswald Mosley is not confined to his personal appearance?

Mr. Speaker: How on earth can I decide that as a point of order? It has nothing to do with me at all. Perhaps we may now take Question No. 35.

Mr. Benn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Her Majesty's Government have brought this country into a state of armed conflict with Egypt. Though personally I have no objection to the hon. Member calling me names, I think it very questionable whether an hon. Member ought to be referred to as a servant of a State with which Her Majesty's Government have brought this country into a state of war.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the original remark. I cannot say more than I have said. If there was any treasonable imputation in it, it would, of course, be grossly out of order. However, as I only heard the remark repeated to me, I would say that I think it was a form of abuse which is highly undesirable. I cannot put it any higher than that.

Mr. Griffiths: Would it not be in accordance with the best traditions of the House, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member concerned to rise at once and withdraw the remark?

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be an act to his credit if he did so.

Mr. Body: Might I, as the hon. Member for Billericay, point out that, despite the allegations made by hon. Members opposite, no such remark was made by the hon. Member for Billericay as that attributed to him.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that Question No. 35 will now be asked.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

British Civilians

Mr. Benn: asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the safety of those British civilians who were in Egypt during the recent Anglo-French military operations in that country; what provisions were made for their safety by the Government of Egypt; and what efforts were made by the Supreme Allied Commander to rescue these people during the operations.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. A. D. Dodds-Parker): rose—

Mr. Robens: On a point of order. May I ask, Sir, whether the discussion that took place on the previous points of order ruled out supplementary questions on the previous Question? We were interested in listening to the Minister of State on the Bagdad Pact, and there were a number of questions we should have liked to have pursued.

Mr. Speaker: We have passed from that Question now. I hope that the House will excuse me if, with the number of points of order that were raised on Question No. 34, I omitted to call the supplementary questions on it, but some of the points of order were, I think, in themselves in the nature of supplementary questions.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Her Majesty's Government have received no reports that any of the British subjects residing in Egypt have suffered injury as a result of the military operations. We are given to understand that the British community are, in general, safe and well. The prime purpose of the Franco-British action was not to rescue but to protect the British community. This was achieved by stopping the war. British subjects in Port Said are, of course, now under the protection of the allied forces there.

Mr. Benn: In view of the fact that the Government, at the very beginning, did state the safety of British civilians as one of the objects of the act of aggression against Egypt, may I ask the Minister whether he has made any efforts at all to find out how these civilians are; whether there have been any efforts made by the Supreme Command to rescue them; whether he will say to what he attributes the fact that these civilians are safe, and whether he will kindly make a statement about the future safety of these civilians in Egypt?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Yes. I attribute the safety of these British civilians to the intervention of the Anglo-French forces.

Mr. Nicholson: Whilst wishing to dissociate myself from everything that has been said, is said, or will be said by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), may I ask a question about these civilians? There are two aspects

to it. First, there is the anxiety felt by relations in this country about their safety. Secondly, there is the fact that these people in Egypt are being held incommunicado and do not get any news of their relations in England. Can my hon. Friend assure me that efforts are being made to get messages through to these civilians, as well as to get them back to this country?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Certainly, Sir. We are in touch with the Swiss Government, who are the protecting Power in this case.

Mr. J. Hynd: Has not the Minister's attention been drawn to the evidence from both Egypt and the Sudan that there was no risk to these British civilians until our invasion, and that the only reason for the respect that has been shown to these people, in spite of our Government's action, is the recognition by the Egyptian and Sudanese people that not all British people are equally guilty with Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: On the contrary, if hostilities had continued without our intervention there would, without any doubt, have been risk to these individuals.

Mr. Crossman: May I ask about the 400 British civilians in the Canal Zone today who are looking after the equipment in what was once the British base? Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, before we intervened, these people were perfectly happy looking after the equipment, but that after we intervened they were all arrested? Could he please bother to tell the House what has happened to these 400 people, who were arrested entirely as a result of our intervention?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The Swiss Government have informed us that employees of the contractors, numbering 450, have been interned.

Supply of Arms

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement giving details of the arms supplied to Egypt in the last five years.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I would refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in answer to


a Question by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) on 14th November.

Mr. Swingler: That was no Answer at all. Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that the Foreign Office has now confirmed and published the Israeli figures of last July of Russian arms supplies to the Middle East? Will he now confirm or deny the Israeli figures published at the same time last July, showing that this Government supplied to Nasser's forces 390 tanks, including 40 Centurians, and 100 jet 'planes, as well as two destroyers and seven frigates? Are those figures from Israel as correct as the Israeli figures about Russian arms, confirmed from the Foreign Office?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir. From the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)—[Interruption]—was Minister of Defence, it has been said that it is contrary to the normal practice to disclose details of exports of military equipment.

Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. Owing to the noise, it was quite impossible to hear the Joint Under-Secretary's reply. May we now be allowed to hear it?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I said that from the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington was Minister of Defence, it has been said that it is contrary to normal practice to disclose details of exports of military equipment.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much of the information about Soviet arms supplied to Egypt given to the Press by his officials on Sunday, 11th November, was not in possession of the Government on 29th October, 1956.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Minister Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what date he was first informed that the Soviet bloc were sending large quantities of military equipment into Egypt.

Commander Noble: All the information which was given to the Press on 11th November was in the Government's possession on 29th October. Her Majesty's Government have known since September, 1955, that an arms deal had been made and this was announced at the time. The events of the last few

weeks have provided confirmation of the great extent of these deliveries and of Soviet penetration in the area.

Mr. Wigg: Does not that Answer show quite conclusively that the Government have worked through all their excuses and have now come down to the old corny one of a Russian plot? Is not this just another Government lie?

Commander Noble: My Answer makes it quite clear that the Government had had this information for some time and that it has now been confirmed by recent events.

Mr. Dugdale: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that he has had the information for some time, how came it that the President of the Board of Trade said that certainly our intervention disclosed that there had been arms supplied in this way?

Commander Noble: I think that the Government have made the position quite clear. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will remember that, in last week's debate, hon. Members said that they had had this information for some time.

Mr. Brooman-White: If the object of Her Majesty's Government's policy was to maintain the balance between the forces in the Middle East, did not the events of the Gaza battle show that the Israeli forces were certainly at no great disadvantage?

Commander Noble: Yes. I think that the statement made last year by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, that Israel was in a position to defend herself, has been fully borne out by recent events.

Mr. Stokes: May I follow up what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale)? Does not the Minister think that the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in the debate last week that recent events had disclosed what he imputed to be a quite new state of things—but it is not new at all—was meant to deceive the country into believing that something quite new had happened?

Commander Noble: I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would never accuse the President of the Board


of Trade of trying to deceive the country. What he was saying was that this information had now been confirmed.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it quite clear that I do accuse the President of the Board of Trade of attempting to deceive both this House and the country.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) should know that he should not accuse anyone in this House of deceit. That is certainly out of order. He should not say that an hon. Member is "deceiving" the House, because that is an accusation which is not in order.

Mr. Stokes: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, if you will study the reports in The Times, for instance, which is supposed to be a reputable paper, you will see that in its issue of 12th November The Times says that the President of the Board of Trade used the word "disclosed," when he ought to have said "confirmed." I would submit to you that the use of the word "disclosed" was quite an improper use of that word by the President of the Board of Trade in describing the then situation.

Mr. Speaker: It may be that the right hon. Gentleman can say that he was misled by it, but to accuse another hon. Member of the motive of deceit is wrong. I allow the greatest possible freedom of language, because I believe in it, but I know that an hon. Member should not say of another hon. Member that he is telling lies. The intention of deceit, or deceiving the House with intention, is wrong.

Mr. Stokes: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I did not call him a liar, although I thought he was.

Mr. Speaker: This is really getting beyond what is right. The right hon. Member should not accuse another Member of that. I must ask him to withdraw the expression.

Mr. Stokes: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I did not call him a liar. I said that he had made a misuse of a word. You provoked me into saying that I thought he was a liar. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Certainly, what I said was that he used the word "disclosed" in the wrong sense. What he ought to

have said was what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of State now says, that the figures which he then talked about confirmed what the Government already knew.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has made some sort of withdrawal. He says that he misunderstood or used the wrong words. I think that if an hon. Member in heat uses a word which he should not, it raises his credit in the House if he makes a manly withdrawal. While I dislike intensely the word used by the hon. Member for Billericay, I could not believe that it was seriously intended to mean that the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was in fact a lackey of Nasser. A lackey means a paid servant on his staff, which is absurd. It was merely a word of abuse.

Mr. Body: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has his point of order, but so have I. I really think that the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) ought to obey the custom of the House.

Mr. Stokes: Very well. Out of respect for you, Mr. Speaker, and for the House, and as a guide to the hon. Member for Billericay, I have pleasure in withdrawing my statement.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged. Mr. Teeling.

Mr. Wigg: Mr. Speaker, as it Was my original Question, may I ask quite calmly—

Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman may not.

Mr. Braine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When a little bit earlier it was stated that I had used a term which, perhaps, in the view of some hon. Members should not have been used, I would have risen to my feet, but I got the distinct impression that the word "lackey" used in the particular context in which I confess I used it was not an unparliamentary expression. It was for that reason, and for that reason only, that I did not rise. I feel quite justified in my mind in having used that phrase in that context. But if it would help the atmosphere in any way—

Mr. Robens: Do not bother.

Mr. Speaker: I am not asking the hon. Member to help me. I am asking him to do what he thinks proper in the case. I think he should do what I have suggested to him.

Mr. Braine: Further to that point, Mr. Speaker. It was no part of my purpose to help you because, as I made clear a little earlier, the phrase was in no way directed at the Chair, and for you I have the utmost respect. All I would say is that if consistent advocacy of the cause of one's country's enemies is not being a lackey, I will withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is only making the matter worse.

Mr. Body: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that the hon. Member for Billericay has been sitting here and has hardly said a word throughout the whole proceedings.

Mr. Speaker: That really was a justifiable point of order. I apologise to the hon. Member for Billericay. I was referreing to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) by his former constituency.

Mr. Dugdale: On a point of order. Whatever the President of the Board of Trade may or may not have thought when he made that statement, is it not a fact that the statement was inaccurate, and, as it was inaccurate, may he make a public withdrawal of it so that we know exactly where we are?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of debate. It is not a point of order at all.

Mr. Teeling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may remember that a long time ago you called my Question, which is the next one on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid it is now twenty-five minutes to four.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DISABLED PENSIONERS (ALLOWANCES)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

70. Sir I. FRASER: To ask the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he has now reviewed war pensions provisions relating to the most seriously disabled cases.

71. Sir R. CARY: To ask the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to what action is to be taken on the claim made on behalf of ageing pensioners of the 1914 to 1918 war.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I will, with permission, Sir, answer Questions Nos. 70 and 71 together.
Yes, Sir. The Government have been considering the position of the older war pensioners with a serious disablement—borne by most of them since the 1914–18 war—and have decided to introduce a new allowance for the war disablement pensioners who are aged 65 or over and whose assessment is 40 per cent. or more. The allowance will be at rates ranging between 5s. and 15s. a week, according to the degree of disablement.
The Government have also decided to give some further help to the most seriously disabled war pensioners. In order to do this, the existing rate for the comforts allowance will be increased from 10s. to 20s. a week. We also propose to extend eligibility for comforts allowance at the present rate of 10s. to war pensioners at present not receiving it, but in receipt of either unemployability supplement or constant attendance allowance.
The cost of all these changes will be about £1·6 million in a full year. The necessary amendments will be made in the Royal Warrants, and it is intended to bring all these improvements, full details of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, into operation on the first pay-day in February, 1957.

Sir I. Fraser: These proposals will need study, but may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the extension of these special allowances to new and wider categories of disabled men will be very widely welcomed by the British Legion, the British Legion in Scotland, the Royal Air Forces Association, St. Dunstans and other societies which have recently made representations, among other things, in this sense? May I also ask him, particularly, whether he will realise that the application of these benefits to a much larger number of seriously disabled men is a move in the right


direction? Finally, could he say how many disabled ex-Service men he thinks will benefit?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the earlier part of his supplementary question.
In reply to the latter part, the allowance at age 65 for disabilities in excess of 40 per cent. will, it is calculated, affect 55,000 war pensioners. The doubling of the existing comforts allowance will benefit about 8,000, and the extension of the comforts allowance at the lower rate will benefit about 13,000.

Sir R. Cary: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all members of B.L.E.S.M.A. will be grateful for the statement he has made this afternoon? As chairman of the all-party committee concerned with this question, may I thank him and his Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the consistent interest that they have always shown in the claims for the disabled men of the 1914–18 war?
On one point of clarification, may I ask my right hon. Friend this question? The totally disabled, from, say, 85 to 100 per cent. disability, will receive an additional 15s. Would I be right in assuming that by doubling the comforts claimed, that benefit would come to an additional 10s., making 25s. per man?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the pensioner concerned were over 65 years of age, and in receipt of the existing comforts allowance—that is to say, he qualified under the present conditions for it—the increase which my hon. Friend has mentioned would be the operative increase.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reference to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who has taken a great interest in this subject for many years.

Mr. Marquand: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this side of the House his announcement will be welcomed as a response to an appeal which, as he knows, has been put forward for a long time by Members in all parts of the House? May I ask whether, in announcing these reforms, he has considered the possibility of doing something similar for

the industrially injured, whose provisions usually march in step with those of war pensioners?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged to the right hon. Member for what he has said. These proposals relate to the war disabled; they are a war pensions measure, in exactly the same way as the introduction of the comforts allowance as a separate war pensions measure took place in 1951. I have no statement to make at present on any part of the National Insurance Scheme, to which, of course, the matter of industrial injuries belongs.

Mr. Bowles: I have in my hand a letter dated 14th November from someone in Blackpool which tells of a man having a 60 per cent. disablement, this condition being attributable to the 1914 war; but he only got a pension from 1953. Can this man now claim to go back to 1914–18, in which war he was, in fact, injured?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should not like to answer the hon. Member on the facts of a particular case without looking at it, as he will understand. This allowance will start to operate from February next; it will not be retrospective beyond that.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would the Minister say whether or not this welcome increase applies to pensioners over the age of 65 whether or not they are suffering from injury sustained in the 1914–18 war, because it is possible that a pensioner may be over 65 and have incurred his war service disability later than 1918?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This applies to all war disability pensioners who satisfy the two conditions of being over 65 and an assessment in excess of 40 per cent., no matter in what war they sustained their disability.

Dr. King: The Minister's statement concedes a new principle, that disability becomes an increasing burden in old age. May I, speaking for all those on this side of the House who have been advocating this change to the Minister and his predecessor, thank him on behalf of all ageing ex-Service men?

Following are the details:

The rates of the new allowance for war disablement pensioners of 65 years of age or over will be as below:


War disablement assessment
Rate of Allowance




Officers (Yearly rate)
Other Ranks (Weekly rate)



£
s.
s.
d.


40 or 50 per cent.
…
13
0
5
0


60 or 70 per cent.
…
19
10
7
6


80 or 90 per cent
…
26
0
10
0


100 per cent.
…
39
0
15
0

It is estimated that about 55,000 pensioners will benefit from this allowance. An explanation of the action necessary to obtain it will be sent to each pensioner concerned as soon as possible.

The conditions, which have stood since 1951, governing the award of a comforts allowance to war pensioners who are in receipt of both the unemployability supplement and the attendance allowance and to certain other seriously injured pensioners, will be maintained; but the rate of the allowance for pensioners in these two classes will be increased from 10s. to 20s. a week in the case of other ranks and from £26 to £52 a year in the case of officers. About 8,000 pensioners will benefit from this improvement. Review will be automatic and application will not be necessary.

The new comforts allowance, at the rate of 10s. a week (£26 a year for officers), will be awarded to those seriously disabled pensioners who are receiving either the unemployability supplement or the constant attendance allowance and who do not come within the two classes now qualifying for the allowance.

This extension of the allowance will benefit about 13,000 pensioners Application will not be necessary.

Corresponding improvements will be made in the disability awards administered by the Service Departments.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION

Bill to make provision for disqualifying the holders of specified offices for membership of the House of Commons, and to repeal the enactments providing for the disqualification of the holders of offices or places of profit under the Crown and other offices, of persons having pensions from the Crown and of persons contracting with the Crown for or on account of the public service, and certain enactments disqualifying members of that House for holding other offices; to make corresponding provision in respect of the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Major Lloyd-George; supported by Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. J. Stuart, and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 11.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — AIR CORPORATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.42 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill has only two objects, and I venture to think that both of these objects will be generally acceptable to the House as a whole. Even so, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has felt it would be better if I were to move the Second Reading so that he may himself be in a position to answer any points which may occur to hon. Members on either side of the House in the discussion which will follow what I have to say.
The first object of the Bill, indeed, the primary reason for it, is to increase the maximum amount which British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways Corporation can borrow so that they may have the capital which they require to buy the best and the most up-to-date aircraft, which, of course, they must have if they are to keep their place among the world's leading airlines. This is set out in subsection (1) of Clause 1, which is the only operative Clause of the Bill.
The second object is to give B.O.A.C. specific power to borrow, with Treasury guarantee, from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and from the Export-Import Bank of Washington. I will explain in a minute or two why this is important in connection with the dollar financing of the Boeing aircraft which, as the House already knows, the Government have authorised B.O.A.C. to order. This second object is set out in subsections (2) and (3).
I do not think that the Bill need detain the House for very long. It will be within recollection that only a week or so ago we had a very full debate on the Reports and Accounts of the two Airways Corporations, and all hon. Members agreed that there was every reason to expect that the rapid rate of expansion of world civil air transport would continue, so far as anyone can see, into the future. It is

important, and I think this was accepted on all sides, that the British air transport industry must, at any rate, be in a position to keep, and if possible to increase, its share of this international business with all its opportunities for obtaining foreign exchange and its unquestionable prestige value to our country.
Any expanding business must increase its capital one way or another, so it is only to be expected that more capital should be needed now by our two Airways Corporations. When my right hon. Friend announced, on 24th October, Government approval for B.O.A.C. to order 15 Boeing jet aircraft and the Corporation's intention to order further British jet aircraft, the DH 118, he warned the House that an increase in the Corporation's limit of borrowing powers would be necessary.
The finances of the two Corporations, their hopes of expansion, and the case for the purchase of the Boeing aircraft by B.O.A.C. were fully discussed in this recent debate, and, judging from our objective and amicable deliberations on that occasion, I believe that there is nothing controversial in the present proposals. I shall, therefore, confine myself to a description in general terms of the; objects of the three subsections of the operative Clause of the Bill.
Subsection (1) proposes to increase the. maximum borrowing limit of B.O.A.C from its present figure of £80 million to £160 million, and to increase that of B.E.A. from £35 million to £60 million. Perhaps I ought to explain that in proposing these new limits my right hon. Friend has attempted to cover the needs of the two Corporations for at least the next five-year period. Like all other first-class airlines engaged in international competition, the Corporations have to look as far ahead as five years for their aircraft needs and place their orders accordingly.
The basis on which the new limits have been assessed is fairly straightforward. Each Corporation's borrowing requirements is a net figure obtained by deducting from estimated total capital expenditure the sum which it should itself raise internally from obsolescence reserves, sale of aircraft, annual profits, and so on. These borrowing requirements must be assessed year by year so that each Corporation has at any time


sufficient capital to meet its capital requirements, including, of course, progress payments on aircraft on order as they arise.
The new limits are designed to cover the year in which the Corporations' borrowings reach their peak. It will be obvious that much of the expenditure on new aircraft can be met only by fresh borrowings. The Corporations' business is constantly increasing, and the new aircraft required to carry additional traffic have to be paid for before they are in service and, therefore, of course, before they can start contributing to obsolescence reserves.
To take B.O.A.C. first, it will reach its existing limit of £80 million as a result of orders which it has already placed. I think that all hon. Members know of the 33 Britannias, 20 Comets, 10 DC7Cs and 14 Viscounts which are already on order. To the payments in respect of these aircraft we have now to add the borrowing requirements arising from the new orders for the 15 Boeings and a substantial number of new British jet aircraft, the DH118.
Until the negotiations between B.O.A.C. and the manufacturer are farther advanced, no precise estimate of the cost of B.O.A.C.'s order for the DH118 can be made. We have estimated, however, that the combined cost of the Boeings and of the DH118s to B.O.A.C. may be about £100 million. Taking all these orders together, B.O.A.C. will then be investing over £180 million in aircraft. To this we must add about £15 million for other capital needs, such as buildings and other equipment, making a total of nearly £200 million of capital expenditure. Internal financing will reduce this figure to a net requirement below £160 million.
Now, I come to British European Airways. The Corporation has on order 38 Viscounts of 800 series and 20 Vanguards and has an option on a further 19 Viscount 800s. During the next five years, B.E.A. expects to need to place orders for some helicopters and, possibly, for a small number of jet aircraft for its longer routes. Its present borrowing limit is £35 million and this will be needed for aircraft which have already been ordered. I cannot give precise figures for

the further orders which will be necessary, but it is estimated that the net borrowings may reach £60 million during the next five years, and it would not be prudent to ask for a maximum below that figure.
In the recent debate, my right hon. Friend described the huge strides which air transport has made since the war and will continue to make in the foreseeable future. The scope of airline operation is continually expanding. New routes are being served and the introduction of lower fares has opened the possibility of air travel to an ever-increasing number of people. It is this which, I think, all who are interested in civil air transport would wish to foster as speedily as possible, so that people throughout the whole world who have not so far been able to afford the use of civil air transport should be permitted to do so in an ever-increasing number.

Mr. Paul Williams: Did I understand my hon. Friend to say that he was uncertain, or unaware, of the basis on which the extra £25 million was being asked for?

Mr. Profumo: No, I did not say that. I said that it was difficult to state the actual amount of money which would be necessary for these new aircraft, but that it would be unwise for us to estimate that it would be below £60 million.
These cheaper fares have been made possible only by outstanding technical progress achieved in the design and production of large and more economic aircraft. One of the consequences of this rapid progress in design is that the equipment for the air transport industry needs replacement more frequently than the equipment for most other industries. Each successive type of aircraft becomes larger and more expensive.
At the same time, I think the House will agree that our Corporations must set their sights high. They have simply got to have the latest and best equipment. B.O.A.C, in particular, has a very difficult job before it. It must recover the ground which it has lost since 1954, when it suffered such a grave setback after the Comet disasters, and it must now go all out for the greatest possible share of all this new traffic. With the right equipment, both Corporations can achieve this aim and this short Bill


makes it possible for them to go forward into the early 1960s, building on the high reputation which they have already earned.
I come now to the second object of the Bill as set out in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1, namely, to permit B.O.A.C—only B.O.A.C, not B.E.A.—to borrow, if need be, from the International Bank and from the Export-Import Bank, or from both, to finance the purchase of aircraft manufactured in the United States of America, together with spare parts and equipment.
As I have already said, we have the dollar financing of the Boeing transaction in mind in putting forward this provision. The Boeing aircraft which are being ordered will cost a very large sum in dollars, but as soon as they are in operation they will start earning dollars and over their full life they will earn far more dollars than are required for their purchase and maintenance. It will, however, be necessary to pay advances on the aircraft before they are even delivered, perhaps up to one-third of their total cost.
To minimise the drain on our dollar reserves and to tide over the period before the aircraft start earning dollars, it may prove desirable that the dollars should be borrowed and repaid later from the actual dollar earnings of the aircraft themselves. It has not yet been decided how this financing shall be arranged. It will be done by whatever proves to be the most advantageous method.
So that B.O.A.C. shall have the widest field open to it, we have looked into the legal powers of the Corporation to make sure that that field shall not be restricted by lack of the necessary legal authority or by doubts as to the interpretation of the law. B.O.A.C, of course, already has the same borrowing powers as other nationalised industries. It may borrow temporarily by overdraft or otherwise, by the issue of stock and also by way of advances from the Exchequer.
Those powers would cover most of the field open to B.O.A.C. but my right hon. Friend is advised that there is considerable legal doubt whether they would cover loans from the two banks I have mentioned—the International Bank and the Export-Import Bank—either of which might be able to offer advantageous

terms. My right hon. Friend has been advised that the Corporation's existing powers to borrow temporarily or by issue of stock would not permit borrowing under the usual type of International Bank loan agreement, which is unlikely to be altered.
As regards the Export-Import Bank of Washington, the legal advice which my right hon. Friend has received is not as firm, but he is unable to be confident that power to borrow from this source exists under present legislation.
Because of the uncertainty, we wish to put the matter beyond all doubt by seeking specific powers, as we do in this Bill, to make it possible for B.O.A.C. to borrow from the two banks. The provision to borrow from these banks is, of course, a purely permissive provision. It does not tie B.O.A.C. to borrow from either of them should other sources of finance be available and prove to be more attractive. It merely gives B.O.A.C. power to borrow from the two banks should this course prove to be desirable.
Subsection (3) of Clause I may appear to be rather technical, but—

Mr. John Rankin: I thought that the Minister might have a word or two more to say about the permission to borrow outside this country. Is that not to some extent taking away from Britain and into America business that might be carried on within this country?

Mr. Profumo: I did not say more because I hoped I would be clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. This is only a permissive power. I do not think that it will take outside this country business which might otherwise be done here.
I think hon. Members will agree that in an enormous deal of this kind, involving considerable dollar expenditure, the Corporation should be given the widest possible scope for its business acumen so that it may act in whatever may be the most helpful and beneficial manner for the country in general. It is simply because we are not absolutely certain of the legal position of borrowing if the Corporation wanted to use either or both of the two banks that we have felt that we should remove that difficulty and legislate accordingly. If the hon. Member has any doubts, and would like to


go into them in a speech in more detail, my right hon. Friend will, of course, be able to give him any further information that he may require. I hope I have now made the position clear.
Clause 1 (3) may appear somewhat technical, but it is simply a corollary of subsection (2) and is necessary to give the Treasury power to guarantee the principal and interest on the new form of borrowing—from the two banks—just as the Treasury has power to give guarantees for other forms of borrowing. It will also enable the Treasury to guarantee any other charge arising from the loan, such as a commitment charge. A commitment charge which is commonly required by American banks, is a small additional premium payable annually on the portion of the loan which has not already been taken up.
By subsection (3), the Treasury's existing powers of guaranteeing loans raised by B.O.A.C. are extended in these two ways to loans raised from either of the two specified banks and to incidental charges which may arise in the case of loans from these banks. Those are extensions of the Treasury's powers of guarantee which naturally follow the extension of B.O.A.C.'s own borrowing powers.
These are the simple facts of a simple, straightforward but, I think, extremely important Bill; extremely important because, as I have said, it is absolutely necessary that both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. should be in possession of the right sort of equipment so that they can fly all over the world, with their pilots having the knowledge that they have the best possible aircraft, and so that the Corporations are in a position to be able to vie with any other first-class airline in the world.
I am sure that all hon. Members who constantly attend our debates on these matters will be with me and my right hon. Friend in commending the provisions of the Bill to the House.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick: We are very grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the very clear way in which he has explained the Bill, and I can assure him that we are at one with him in seeking to give every possible assistance to our air Corporations

in not only holding but expanding our share of the world's air transport.
The first reaction of most people, I think, to the Bill and to the explanation which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given us was a slight gasp of astonishment at the figures involved. Buying aircraft is becoming a very expensive business, indeed. My mind goes back to the 1946 debates we had in Standing Committee on the Civil Aviation Act. I recall the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) saying that nationalisation would prevent some of the Service men who were returning from the war from going into the air transport business with their gratuities. I ventured to put to him at the time the thought that we should be very lucky indeed if we were able to buy one blade of one propeller with the gratuities which Her Majesty's Government were proposing to give to us. I think that even that estimate was probably optimistic, considering the way prices have risen.
It is interesting to notice that a DC 3 which could be picked up just after the war for £10,000 will now change hands at about four times that amount, at about £40,000, and that replacement of the machine will now be four times that, about £160,000, while the kind of aircraft we are now considering for these two Corporations will be in excess of twice that figure and probably up to as much as seven times that figure—that is, aircraft on the North Atlantic passenger services. So, big sums are inevitably involved, but we have a duty not only to examine the volume of the amount of money requested but the measures by which it is to be raised.
We are now considering the principle of borrowing for nationalised industries which was laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Finance Act. As I understand, from what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says, and from what we have been told before by the Chancellor, the Corporations will now go to the Treasury not only for the capital sums required to buy aircraft but, when necessary, for their working capital when the revenue received is not adequate to meet their outgoings at any time of the year.
The first question I would ask the Minister, who, I hope, will answer it when he replies to the debate, is: how will this


work out in practice? Is there to be a monthly limit on the overdraft, as it were, which the Corporations will be permitted? What happens at the end of the year? Are the outstanding loans in some way to be consolidated? Is the deficit which results from the year's working—and it would seem from what we are told about one Corporation, at any rate, that it now contemplates a deficit, certainly for the next year—to be lumped in with capital sums borrowed for purchasing aircraft and then funded in some loan stock? Or will it remain as an outstanding loan by the Treasury, to be paid for in such manner as is expedient or convenient to the Corporations in the next two or three years? What kind of a loan will it be? What kind of rate of interest will it attract? Will it be a fixed rate of interest or a rate of interest to be adjusted at the end of each year according to the market rates?
There has been some criticism by hon. Members opposite that the air Corporations are given an unfair advantage over their competitors in so far as the Corporations' financing is made easier and cheaper by this method. I think it is worth considering this for a moment. It seems to me a very curious criticism. It seems to me a virtue of public ownership rather than a fault that we can cut the cost of the money-lender. I can quite understand going out of our way to pay as high a reward as possible to the workers in the industry. I can understand our wanting to give the best possible service to those who use the services which the industry provides. However, I find it very difficult to appreciate the argument, which is sometimes advanced, that we should go out of our way to raise money at higher rates simply in order to not compete unfairly—as it is said—with other operators.
The fact is that the Corporations are, of course, competing not only with British independent operators, and, indeed, to a very small extent with British air companies: they are competing with foreign airlines. Therefore, I would say to those who may argue that it is an unfair advantage to the Corporations to enable them to raise money in this way that I think that that advantage is by no means unfair considering the resources at the disposal of some of the foreign airline operators with whom our own Corporations are in competition.
There is a further argument which apparently finds favour in some quarters. It was advanced also from the Liberal benches when we were considering this matter some months ago. It is that if the public Corporations had to go out into the money market they would be subject to the discipline of the market. This seems to be not only jargon, but largely meaningless jargon. I wonder whether those who use it seriously intend us to believe that if the air Corporations went to the bankers the bankers would question them closely as to the utilisation of their aircraft or the costs of their administration, or whether they would refer to any rumour that the cabin service was deteriorating so as to be likely to lead in the future to some reduction in business.
Of course, the private money-lender is interested in only one thing primarily, and that is the security of the borrower, and it is only in so far as his security is affected that he is at all interested in the question of the usefulness or efficiency of the person seeking the loan. I cannot see that any private banking house would ever seriously challenge the security of these Corporations whether the loan is formally guaranteed by the Treasury or not, so all this talk about the discipline of the money market seems to be largely irrelevant when we are considering these two air Corporations.
However, though I doubt very much whether the bankers would exercise any discipline on such credit-worthy borrowers as the air Corporations I believe that Parliament has the duty to satisfy itself that the Minister himself is exercising this kind of discipline, and it is in that spirit I propose to put one or two questions to the Minister.
First, on the total sums which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned to us. As far as I can gather, the total capital liability of B.O.A.C. at the end of another five years will be about £160 million. I ventured to refer three years ago, when we were considering the Air Corporations Act, 1953, which extended their borrowing powers, to the ratio of turnover of the two air Corporations as against their capital liabilities at that time. B.E.A. compared very unfavourably with B.O.A.C. and with foreign airlines. Its annual revenue was less than its total capital. It was costing rather more than £1 to attract £1 worth of business. I


thought that that ratio was a little doubtful and ought to be considered. I am glad to see that this year the returns of B.E.A. show a distinct improvement.
The Report of B.O.A.C., however, shows a position that is nothing like so happy. Its capital at present stands at £56 million and its revenue at about £42 million. I presume that to some extent that is explained by the payments which it has made for aircraft for which it is still waiting. We ought to be told what are the prospects in respect of those aircraft. That sort of ratio as between capital and turnover cannot be accepted, I should have thought, by the House, but if we take the sums mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary the Corporation, in another six years, will have a capital liability of three times its present size.
Has the Minister considered what the total revenue will be in about six years' time? Is he satisfied that it will be at least three times the present figure? Even if it is three times, it is inadequate to give us the kind of return that we want, because it will mean that the revenue will be about the same as the capital liability. The annual revenue of Pan-American and T.W.A. and most of the other foreign companies is significantly in excess of their capital liability. I hope, therefore, that we shall have from the Minister his thinking on what the expansion of business is expected to be over the next six years.
I appreciate the difficulty which the Parliamentary Secretary had when he replied to the debate that we had last Friday week, but I was hoping that today he would have given us some of the answers which he was not able to give on that previous occasion. I am still curious, for example, about that £354,000 worth of unused flight coupons which were so fortunately discovered in time for the last Report, and which turned a potential loss of about £200,000 into a profit of around £117,000. Not since the day in 1834, when someone found that pile of tallies in the Palace of Westminster, has there been such a remarkable find as this £354,000 worth of tickets which apparently someone had not used. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
Can the Minister also explain the deficit of £360,000 on British West Indian Airways, and the £40,000 loss on

the Bahamas Airways, which operates, I believe, only a Grumman Goose and a couple of other small aircraft? Are we being asked to authorise borrowings partly for subsidising the tourist industry, and simply making it possible for our tax-evading patriots of Montego Bay to travel a little more cheaply?
It is not enough to talk about the difficulties of re-equipment, because all airlines have this difficulty and have to face it without incurring a loss of this kind. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will explain how these losses were incurred and what steps are being taken in the future to see that none of the money which we are now being asked to authorise will go the same way as that £360,000. If we are to have these new aircraft and this large sum of money invested in the industry, we should ask, and be given some reply, about the expansion of the services. In what directions and how are we going to expand our services?
I want especially to press the Minister about his freight policy. I am sure that we have all been pleased to note the success of B.E.A. in getting more freight traffic, but what about B.O.A.C? I should like to ask the Minister a little more about Australian freight traffic. The Parliamentary Secretary said that an application for freight services to Australia was made by an independent company. Exactly when was that application made and why is there no reference to it, as far as I can make out, in the Report of the Air Transport Advisory Council? Every other application is listed there. I may conceivably have missed it but, as far as I can see, there is no reference to it in that annual Report.

Mr. Profumo: I attempted to deal with this point during our last debate, and I will put it right in one moment. Reference to the application did not appear because the application never reached a stage of being recommended and agreed to by my right hon. Friend. It got through the Air Transport Advisory Council, but was not acceptable to the Australian Government and never saw the light of day.

Mr. Beswick: That may well be, but there were a number of other applications which never saw the light of day, yet they are listed in the fourth column at the


end of the Council's Report and some explanation is given, such as that one application was not approved, another was approved but was withdrawn by the company, and so on. But there is no indication that this particular freight service application did not reach the light of day. I still think that there should be a note in the Report of what happened.
But if the Australian Government have said that they will not permit a second United Kingdom operator to go into the Australian Continent, what is the position of the first operator, B.O.A.C.? Is the Minister pressing the Corporation to expand its freight services to Australia? Would he like to see the Corporation operating freight services to that Continent? In general, what is his attitude to the expansion of freight services by the Corporations? Do the restrictions which his predecessor placed on B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. still stand, or has the right hon. Gentleman given the Corporations the green light and told them that they can go ahead and start new freight services or expand and enlarge some of the freight services which they already operate? The Australian route seems to me important in this connection.
Would the Minister also take the opportunity of giving us a little more information about the expansion of the passenger services? To what extent is it planned that this money should be used to put B.O.A.C. back on the South American routes? How long does the Minister expect it will be before we can get back on those routes? He has looked ahead and has rightly said that we must look into the next decade for our aircraft requirements, but if he is planning aircraft over the next six or ten years he must have some idea of the routes over which they will fly. Therefore, what are the prospects of a British carrier on the South American route once more?
Here I ask again the question which I asked last Friday week and which I hope the Minister will take seriously. What chance is there now of getting the Princess flying boats into the air again? Has the idea been completely scrapped, or is the Minister still considering it? A few years ago it was felt that the Princess flying boat would be an economic proposition, and the B.O.A.C. undertook

considerable research into the use of these flying boats fitted with Rolls Royce Conway engines.
Even with the additional cost incurred by the water bases. I still feel that, having built two of these aircraft, it would be feasible to put them into the air for a reasonable capital expenditure compared with the cost we are facing in connection with the Boeing aircraft. Therefore, I ask the Minister, who is looking after the civil side of aviation, whether he will reconsider the Princess flying boat before it is too late, and to see whether we can contemplate taking these aircraft out of their cocoons and putting them into the air.
When it comes to the question of buying new machines, we ought to have more information about the method of payment. To put it another way, to what extent are we being asked to approve a Bill which is intended to finance the aircraft constructor at least as much as the airline operator? In 1953, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
… in the national interest it is better that the Corporations, who can raise money at gilt-edged rates, should pay for their aircraft when they are delivered. If they did not, the manufacturers would be all the less able than they are now to finance purchases by overseas buyers and, indeed, by independent companies in the United Kingdom."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 11th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 1032.]
There we have the Parliamentary Secretary saying that these borrowing powers are designed in part to help the manufacturing industry. I am not saying that this is not in the national interest, but I feel that we ought to have the full facts.
A little earlier the hon. Gentleman said that we shall probably have to pay about one-third of the cost of the Boeing 707s before they are delivered. How does this compare with what we have to pay for the British aircraft we order? My information is that some of these machines are paid for completely before they are received. There is a deposit, then there are progress payments. To what extent is the full cost of the aircraft met before it is received by the Corporations or put into service?
As an example of what I am trying to elicit, can we be told something about the Britannia? Can we know how much money has been paid by B.O.A.C. for the Britannia aircraft, the first of which has


still to go into service? If the figure is given, I should be surprised to hear that less than £2 million or £3 million has been paid out already by the Corporations. This represents capital already tied up, yet the aircraft are still not available.
Could the Minister also say whether the figure given by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), a week ago, about the costs incurred by the Corporation on the Britannia is accurate? My hon. Friend estimated it to be £1½ million. Is it correct that the Corporation has already spent on development costs, and so on, a sum like that on this aircraft? Would that figure include expenditure on maintenance docks? I believe that docks have been constructed already for the maintenance of the Britannia, the cost of which cannot be less than £50,000, and they are lying idle as regards the maintenance of this aircraft. This represents a large sum of money tied up, and we are asked to provide more in this Bill. We ought to be able to assure ourselves that the Corporation is not carrying a burden which should be carried by some other organisation.
Having said that, I would say this about the Britannia. Like other hon. Members, I have had the opportunity of flying in the Britannia. Clearly, it will have immense passenger attractions. It will be a comfortable and quiet aircraft and, from all the figures available, it appears to be an economical one. We all want it to get into service as quickly as possible, but would the Minister tell us what guidance he is giving the Corporation as to when the aircraft should go into service?
After all, the Minister has the ultimate responsibility, not only for the Corporation but also for the Air Registration Board. Will this machine go into operation before the cause of the flame-out is discovered, or will it go into service before we have the answer to the fundamental trouble? Will it go into service when we merely have a method by which the engines are relighted?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is with regret that I interrupt the hon. Member. But is this really relevant to the Bill, which is one for the raising of money?

It is true that the hon. Member is entitled to ask how the money is to be used, but if we get into details on particular aircraft we are in danger of getting out of order.

Mr. Beswick: I must accept your guidance, Mr. Speaker, but I took the precaution of looking up some precedents. I noted that the debate on the previous Bill not only included a discussion of aircraft equipment, but also the facilities at the airports. All kinds of details were permitted, and I imagined that I was only following that precedent. I hope, therefore, you will accept that some of these matters are relevant to the Bill before us. Sums of money are being asked for, and these are the matters on which the money is to be spent. Can the Minister, therefore, give us some information about the conditions under which the Britannia is to go into full passenger-carrying service again?
I want to raise two other points on the question of the re-equipment of B.O.A.C., because it seems to me that the Minister has been a little complacent about the multiplication of aircraft types which we now have to contemplate. In the old days we said that the great difficulty for the Corporation was the fact that its costs had gone up because there was too great a diversity of aircraft types. Last Friday week the Minister told us that the Corporation had on order no less than seven different types and modifications of aircraft, in addition to the Boeing 707 which are also to be ordered. We have four principal aircraft types now operating, and also one or two other services are being operated by smaller machines. Is the Minister watching this danger? Is he satisfied that we are not laying up a store of trouble for the future?
I have just referred to the maintenance dock, which represents a high capital cost on one item alone. The more types we have, the more expensive it becomes to maintain each one, as regards spares, and so on. We may well find that this sum of money for which the Government are now asking will not even meet the Corporation's requirements, if it has to carry this great burden of spares which the use of all these types will entail. Has the Minister looked into that aspect of the matter? If so, will he give us the benefit of his thinking upon it?
I want to return to the exchanges which we had about the additional type of machine which the Corporation is to buy in 1962, the DH118. I do not want to discuss this at any great length, because we had a fair exchange about it last time, but we should try to make the present procedure about the ordering of new aircraft a little more clear.
On 2nd November, the Minister of Supply said:
It has always been made quite clear by B.O.A.C. that the Corporation was interested in aircraft with Transatlantic performance plus more flexible performance than is given by the large American jets. That is the specification dating back for many months, and such an aircraft is now being discussed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1956; Vol. 558, c. 1803.]
It seems a little strange, if this matter has been discussed for so many months, that not a word was said about it when we debated the Corporation's aircraft last November. Not a single word was then said about the requirement for the Boeing Transatlantic aircraft, or for this new machine, yet two weeks ago the Minister of Supply said that the Corporation had always had this requirement.
When we discussed the cancellation of the V.1000, there was mention of the Air Transport Requirements Committee, which apparently was of the opinion that the V.1000 was not good enough and which was already discussing something rather better. Did anything emerge from that consideration by that committee? Was any specification put to the manufacturers? If so, when? If nothing emerged from the deliberations of that body which, we are given to understand, represents not only the right hon. Gentleman's Department but the Ministry of Supply and the two Corporations, can we be told exactly what is the position of the committee today?
Did the specification of the DH118 come from the committee, or was it a separate requirement put forward separately and independently by B.O.A.C? If the latter case, is not the A.T.R.C. a body of doubtful value which is merely adding to the number of committees considering these matters and only a source of delay? Has it a job of work to do? If so, what has it done in this connection?
My hon. and right hon. Friends see no reason why the Bill should not go through

within the rather tight time-table which the Government have laid down for it. At the same time, we hope that the Minister will be good enough to give us all the information possible on the issues which I have raised.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. P. B. Lucas: I am always glad to follow the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), who takes so close an interest in air matters. I am especially glad to be able to follow him today, because he referred to the possible effect of these provisions upon the expansion of B.O.A.C.'s services. He talked about the Australian freight service, and he also mentioned the South American run. I am pleased that he referred to the South Atlantic service, because it is nothing short of monstrous that almost three years after the withdrawal of the Comets we have still not got a British flag-carrying airline on this route.
I do not make these remarks in any criticism of my right hon. or hon. Friend. The responsibility does not lie with them, but, nevertheless, I so much agree with what the hon Member for Uxbridge said. We deserve to have some information about the prospects of B.O.A.C. going back on to this route, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some details when he replies to the debate.
I want to refer to one of the significant points of the Bill. By giving B.O.A.C. the power to borrow from either the International Bank, or the Export-Import Bank, for the purpose of buying aircraft from the United States, we are at once calling into question the whole purchasing policy of the Corporation. Before we confer these powers and coolly vote authority to the Corporation to expand its borrowing from £80 million to £160 million—on paper, quite hideous figures in these days of the credit squeeze—we should halt for a moment to reflect upon the policy which we are now pursuing.
Any hon. Member who has listened to our debates on civil aviation, especially those on the Corporations' accounts, in the last few years, knows very well that one theme has been common to almost all of them. It is the continuing controversy over the purchase of American aircraft for the British Overseas Airways


Corporation. This issue has again been brought very much to the fore by the provisions of this Bill and it would not, I think, be inappropriate to make one or two very brief comments upon it.
As to the immediate argument regarding the purchase of the Boeing 707s, which the financial proposals of the Bill are designed to cover, I will say only this. Once the V.1000 and the V.C.7 had been rejected last year, there was no commercial alternative to buying American, if we were to ensure that B.O.A.C. remained in the forefront of the world's operators. I very much agree with my hon. Friend that it is most important that B.O.A.C. should have the ability to buy the equipment which will keep it in the forefront of the world's airlines.
As things now stand, with Capital Airlines of the United States ordering 14 Comets, no great harm will be done by providing facilities for the purchase of 15 Boeings. After all, it has to be remembered that the Rolls-Royce Conway engines which will power these aircraft will represent about 50 per cent. of the total value of each aircraft.
On the face of it, therefore, the purchase of the Boeings look like a good commercial deal and I, for one, would not object to voting the necessary facilities to finance it. If the United States is prepared to order our aircraft, as Capital Airlines has done, no great damage will be inflicted on the industry by our purchasing American aircraft, provided, of course, that they are powered by British engines. There must be a good export content in such orders.
But having said that, we must surely now try to look beyond the early 1960s and into the period which lies almost a decade away. What should our ordering policy then be? Sir, it remains my conviction that some directive should be issued, saying that with effect from a given future date—say 1964 or 1965, if you like—the British Corporations will fly British aircraft exclusively. Rightly or wrongly, I take the view that unless a definite and decisive statement is made, with all the proper qualifications which would have to be written into it, in ten years' time we shall hear repeated many of the arguments which we have seen advanced during the last few years.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Member is suggesting that a directive should be given suggesting the purchase of British aircraft at some given date. What would be his attitude if the Americans gave the same directive to their airlines? Our export trade with Viscounts and other planes would cease.

Mr. Lucas: As I said, under present conditions, this should be a two-way traffic. If the Americans are prepared to order our aircraft I do not see any reason why we should not order theirs, with British engines to power them. But I want ultimately to see the orders given to the British aircraft industry, and British aircraft purchased by B.O.A.C. In the interim, however, I do not see any commercial alternative to buying American—now that the V.1000 and the V.C.7 have been rejected.
I feel most strongly that unless we lay down a definite statement to the effect that from a given date in the future we shall buy British, it may well be that we shall continue to hear the same arguments over the next decade as we hear today. Unless the Corporations are prepared to pioneer new types of British aircraft no one else is likely to do so. If the Corporations fly British there is a fair chance that others will follow.
That, surely, is the lesson we have learned from B.E.A.'s operation of the Viscount. It is the lesson which I hope we shall see repeated in B.O.A.C.'s operation of the Britannia. I should have thought that from the standpoint of the industry, and from the point of view of our exports and balance of payments position, a statement on the lines I have suggested might well represent a worthwhile contribution.
In any event, it would, I think, be quite wrong for us to assume that the Americans are necessarily going to have it all their own way with the Boeing 707s and the DC8s. It may well be that these aircraft will take their place in the van of the great airliners of the world. That must be a hope. But for what it is worth it is my guess that there will be a good many operational headaches and hurdles to be overcome before the 707s, and the later DC8s are fully proved.
It is quite true that they will have had the advantage of learning from our own cruel experiences with the earlier Comets.


Certainly, they will have reaped the benefit of the Americans' own prudent and forward-looking policy of using their military transport command as the proving ground for their civil airliners of the future. But I am as yet quite unconvinced that if the best hopes—and, I repeat, the best hopes—of the long-range Britannia are realised, we shall be at so great a commercial disadvantage in the early 1960s as some would now have us believe. In this, I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Uxbridge.
Sir, I believe that we should support this Bill; but I do not think that we should become reconciled or resigned to the view that B.O.A.C. will inevitably have to go on buying American for a long time to come. From what my hon. Friend has said of the prospects of the DH 118,1 hope very much that this aircraft will put an end to any such notion. B.O.A.C. is a British airline and it should ultimately fly British aircraft exclusively. I do not think that any great harm would be done by making such a statement now.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: I am very much in sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) in trying to increase the sales of the British aircraft industry, but I was rather surprised at his suggestion that the Minister should announce that after a certain date no aircraft shall be bought except from the British industry. That would give a monopoly to the British aircraft industry.
I should like the hon. Member to consider what would be the position. If the British aircraft industry cannot now produce suitable aircraft for the Corporations, under the stimulus of competition, what will it produce without any competition?

Mr. Lucas: What about the Viscount?

Mr. Cronin: Nobody is contesting the excellence of that aircraft, but that has been produced under competition. What the hon. Member wants to do is to give the aircraft manufacturing industry a complete monopoly in this country. That might be very good for the aircraft industry in the short term, but it would certainly be very bad for the Corporation. They would certainly be quite unable to get the machines which would compete with American aircraft.

Mr. Lucas: Surely the hon. Member must know that within the British industry itself there is going to be competition. What does he think that all the aircraft firms do when they are tendering? Surely there is no question of a monopoly. Competition exists, and it would surely exist under the circumstances which I have enumerated.

Mr. Cronin: I follow the hon. Member's argument, but the most important form of competition for the whole of the British industry—which is to a substantial extent co-ordinated—is competition with the American industry. The hon. Member must surely accept the truth of that. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary's statement this afternoon makes it clear that the American industry is competing much more effectively.
I leave that point now and return to the more general aspect of the debate. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary suggested that as we had had quite an extensive debate on civil aviation two or three weeks ago it was not necessary to go into matters more carefully now, and he rather suggested that the debate should be limited. I am surprised that such a rigid timetable has been laid down for the Bill. It contains some quite extraordinary financial provisions, and deals with sums which are really quite enormous and to which this House should certainly pay some respect.
We should first consider whether B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. will be able to carry the burden of the very heavy debt which they are about to take on. It is well known that the operating ratio of all airlines is a very high one. By the "operating ratio" I mean the proportion of operating expenses to total revenue. In airlines that ratio is very high and, as a result, they are all very sensitive to any decrease in traffic volume. The consequence is that they have a very high "break even" point.
Hon. Members will agree that B.O.A.C. is now rather below its "break even" point. We have heard that West Indian Airways and Bahamas Airways are well below the "break even" point. Any large increase of debt will greatly increase the fixed costs and therefore raise the "break even" point higher still, and that may well mean that they will be faced with very considerable financial difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) pointed out that a large proportion of this money wall have to be borrowed at a very high rate of interest, which will put a severe burden on the Corporations. I hope that the Minister will make representation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the size of this burden. We are now in a time of boom; what will happen to B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. when times become harder and more competitive, when there is a decrease in the level of trade and a decrease in traffic?
Shortly there will be a very serious diminution in the amount of fuel oil available. Will that affect the air industry? Can it maintain its traffic volume if there is not sufficient oil? Is it affected by the continuing inflation? All these considerations add up to a burden which is hard to bear, and the Minister should consider measures to increase the profitability of operation of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C.
There are measures which could be put in hand without delay. If we decreased the running costs of these Corporations there would be more likelihood of a substantial surplus to finance the re-equipping of the Corporations. The Minister might therefore consider slowing down the expansion of the route mileage. Anybody who has studied the economics of the matter must realise that B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are expanding their route mileage to a crazy extent, out of all proportion to what they can cope with. The American Civil Aeronautics Board has always exercised a very strong control of the expansion of route mileage. The Minister will be failing in his duty if he does not give equally serious consideration to a decrease in the rate of expansion of route mileage. That will bring about a decrease in flying and in promotion costs of a substantial nature.
Costs could be decreased also by more international co-ordination in the handling of traffic; in other words, if we could have an increase in the capacity-ton-mile per air station. That would bring about a very substantial economy and would greatly reduce operating costs.
Another matter to look at is the extravagant and wasteful competitive practices which are now in operation. Could not the Minister achieve an economy in that respect by means of some

international agreement? For example, if one travels between Paris and London in one of the new, excellent Viscounts, one is offered a meal. It is not a very good meal, and a large proportion of the passengers do not want it. Why must it be thrust on them? Why should the airlines have to pay for these meals? That is an example of an extravagant practice.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: Is it not a fact that that and other expensive luxuries about which the hon. Gentleman is speaking are merely by-products of the price-fixing ring for international air traffic, which will not allow competitive prices, so give-aways have to be introduced?

Mr. Cronin: That may well be the case, but if international authorities can co-ordinate their price-fixing they can co-ordinate their meal-giving. That practice has been going on for a long time.
There are other extravagant competitive practices which are operating against the interests of the consumer. The Minister should consider diminishing the help given to the independent companies, which are certainly having more favourable consideration than circumstances justify.

Mr. P. Williams: Mr. P. Williams rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): We cannot pursue that point at all.

Mr. Cronin: The other point which I wish to speak about is the high cost of maintenance of equipment in English airlines, compared with those of the United States.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Should not the hon. Gentleman say "British", and not "English"?

Mr. Cronin: I most humbly apologise for that very serious slip. Of course they are British airlines. It is a mistake which is sometimes made south of the Border, and requires an apology.
The high cost of maintenance to which I referred could be decreased. I understand that British planes cost more to maintain than do American planes.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: Surely the hon. Gentleman will agree that the motto of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. is "Safety First", all along the line.

Mr. Cronin: B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. have a superb reputation for safety, and no one would like to see anything done to diminish it. There is scope for economy without affecting safety. I do not pretend to be well-instructed in the technical aspects of these matters, but I am sure that many hon. Members have read "Economics of European Air Transport", written by very authoritative air economist, Wheatcroft. He suggests that there is room for an economy of up to 30 per cent. in operational costs in running European airlines alone. That is a very big figure, and even if it is possibly exaggerated it requires the Minister's attention.
I turn to the Bill. Clause 1 (2) relates to the purchase of United States aircraft, the 707s. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick is a little mistaken in his figures. I understood him to suggest that half the cost of these aeroplanes was to be in sterling because they were equipped with Rolls-Royce engines. No support was given to that suggestion when the Minister replied recently to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby), and said that the total cost was £44 million, of which £35 million would be in dollars. That is a very big figure. We have just heard the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say that Boeing aircraft will earn many times their cost in terms of dollars, but that is not the point. The point is that £35 million has to be spent in dollars.
As a result, our gold and dollar reserves, which are sufficiently tenuous now, will be further decreased by a very substantial sum. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has not done the House a real service by trying to diminish the cost of this transaction. We should like to know from him—or perhaps he will instruct his right hon. Friend, in the legal sense of "instruct"—to ascertain whether this will be a once-for-all transaction or whether it is to continue.
We have heard about the V1000 contract which was cancelled last year. We have heard that the Britannia is still unsuitable for service. I gather that these Boeings have been bought to replace the Britannia. What is the position about the progress of the Britannia? I know that these are detailed points, but I think that they are most relevant to Clause 1 (2).
One gathers that the Britannia suffers from a mysterious disease called "flame-out"; that is, that ice gets into the combustion chamber and puts out the flame. If a Britannia which has a full pay-load has that trouble in three of its engines it is on its way down. It would appear that perhaps the most suitable rôle for the Britannia at present would be for it to be sold in the export market, as a troop carrier to a potential aggressor. It certainly does not serve any very useful purpose to us now.
What is to happen about the Avro Atlantic? What is to happen about the H.P.97? All these are potential rivals of the Boeing. I think that the Minister should give some answers to these questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge has asked about them in more detail, but these are matters about which the House wants to know before it goes on with this quite enormous dollar expenditure.
As time is pressing, I will continue no further, except to say that one feels the whole time that the keynote of this debate is that the nationalised air lines B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. are doing very fine work, and if they are being let down at all, they are being let down by the private enterprise British aircraft industry.

5.2 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: I will not follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) through his rather wide range of subjects. I propose to touch on only one of them in the very few moments during which I shall detain the House. I had my chance on Friday a fortnight ago and I do not wish to inflict any lengthy dissertation on hon. Members now.
There is one point which I wish to put. Obviously we all welcome the Bill. It will do no more than is necessary. The growth of traffic in recent years has been such that obviously we are bound to encourage the Corporations to grow. We must recognise that the Corporations' commitments are to be doubled in the next five years, and that is no more than recognising what has already taken place because the Corporations are already committed to that extent. What is not, I think, always known is the extent and speed of the growth of the traffic which


will lead to the need for some new considerations about our future programmes in aviation.
I have here a copy of the Annual Report of the Council to the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation held last year at Caracas. There are figures and graphs in the front of that document which show the actual growth and which may be of interest to hon. Members. If we go back twenty years, we find that passenger miles in 1935 were 606 million as against 38,530 million in 1955. On the same relationship, that makes a multiplication by 60 in 20 years. Looking ahead, I have another document which shows a forecast. It is the issue of American Aviation for 27th February last. This is a forecast by Mr. Larsson of Canadair who has made a very careful study which suggests that as against 38,530 million scheduled passenger miles in 1955, in 1970—fifteen years ahead—world transport will be running at 147,225 million; that is, it will multiply by approximately 3·8, or nearly four times, in the next fifteen years.
If we concede, with the hon. Member for Loughborough, that B.O.A.C. has already excessive route mileage, second only to France, we have to think how we are to run the British share of British aviation in the future. What is the policy to be? If the Corporations are already near their maximum size, who is to run British aviation? Are there to be more Government corporations or is the private sector of the industry to be given more work to do? If they are kept back, they will not be able to manage the proportionate share of the work—four times as much in the next fifteen years. I want to know what my right hon. Friend is doing about this. Does he propose to open any doors which are at present shut? Many believe that perhaps he is not. One thing is relevant to this: are we to see, in their future commitments, the Corporations still including the obsolete aircraft which they have replaced with the new machines for which the finance is now being raised? There is a certain amount of disquiet on that ground.
For instance, it has come to my ears that the second-hand price of B.E.A.'s Ambassador aircraft has suddenly shot

up from £90,000 to £140,000, a sufficiently prohibitive figure to make it clear to any unbiased observer that the Corporation must intend to retain those aircraft when it has its new Viscounts or developments. Are we to find when B.O.A.C. has its Britannias—which I am happy to see from a visit to the factory last week appear to be completely over their "flame-out" trouble, although they cannot stop the ice collecting in the intake—that it intends to hang on to the poor old Constellations and Argonauts which it has at present? Is it to extend its mopping-up operations downwards into the somewhat second-rate field which is all that is allowed for the independent operators?
I should like to know what the Minister's policy is to be about the future expansion of the British Civil aviation industry when it is quite clear that the existing Corporations have reached almost the biggest reasonable limit of size.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) will forgive me if I say that I find it difficult to support his reference to extravagant practices as providing a source of economy in the work of the Corporation. During the autumn I travelled 10,000 miles with B.O.A.C. and a smaller distance with B.E.A.C.—to Amsterdam and Copenhagen with B.E.A. and from Hong Kong home by B.O.A.C. I must confess that I found in what was a fairly long journey little evidence of extravagant practices in the serving of meals. I can say that I found a great deal of attention paid to the comfort of the passengers during the flights by crews which, in my view, were at the very minimum of strength. I do not see that any possible economy could have been effected by reducing the number of those servicing the aircraft. My hon. Friend and I will have to disagree on that as a source of economy in the work of the Corporations.

Mr. Cronin: I was not suggesting that there should be any reduction in the crews, but merely in the general facilities which are not very necessary.

Mr. Rankin: However, we will let that matter remain as it is.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) is


not now in his place, because I wanted to make a reference to what he said. He raised an issue which is fundamental to part of the Bill, in that we are guaranteeing a large part of the new capital for the purchase of aircraft in America. I do not want to enter into the argument, because it seems to me that the Government have taken a proper attitude to the controversy. When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary introduced the Bill he said that the policy of the Government was to buy the best and most up-to-date aircraft. I fail to see how one could criticise that. If we are to buy the best and most up-to-date type of aircraft we must buy aircraft where they are available. If they are available in America and not in Britain we must buy them in America. If they are available in Britain they will be brought in Britain.
It is not merely a case of buying British or buying American; it is a case of buying the most up-to-date type of aircraft we can get wherever those aircraft are. In that of course there is a challenge to the productive side of our own industry. The Minister has stated his policy. It is up to the productive side of the industry to provide the best and most up-to-date type of aircraft. The purpose of an aircraft is to carry passengers. We have to carry them as comfortably and as speedily as possible and with all the efficiency, in addition, which can be added in the serving of the aircraft. That must be our aim. In that way we shall attract passengers and thereby help to reduce fares.
When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was introducing the Bill he referred to the various types of aircraft which were being bought. He referred to the Boeings, the Viscounts, the Britannias and so on, but I never heard him say a word about the Pioneer. That is essentially a Scottish product. As a Scottish Member, naturally I want to see the productive side of the industry in Scotland reinforced. Under the Bill we are to double the amount of money which B.O.A.C. can spend and to increase by £25 million the borrowing powers of B.E.A.C. Naturally I want to know how that is to affect Scotland. We are concerned in this matter. I should like to know what purchases there have been of Pioneer aircraft and for what purpose they are to be used.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that as the industry develops machines will get bigger and bigger. That is happening now. If the machines are to get bigger, of course landing strips must get bigger also. That raises a point which interests many of us in Scotland. In my movements between Prestwick, Renfrew and London I have been hearing that sometimes passengers travelling from London to Prestwick cannot depend on being taken to Prestwick because, if there is a certain velocity of wind from a certain direction, the machine is diverted and goes via Shannon, with the result that internal passengers are prevented from completing their journey that night. Apparently, the reason is that the third runway at Prestwick is not meeting the demands we expected it would meet. I ask the Minister what is the position at Prestwick now? Is the third runway able to take all the machines that wish to come in?
It is no use merely developing the operating side of the industry—as of course we must. As machines get bigger, runways must be provided to enable them to call at airports at which they should call. I hope we shall have that third runway in due course. I thought it was more or less finished and that the controversy was over, but evidently that is not so. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about this when he replies to the debate.
If a machine wishes to come in to the runway there must be a control tower but, so far as I know, the new control tower at Prestwick is not fully meeting its purpose at the moment. Evidently the new control tower is not yet functioning. I hope that the Minister will also say something about that and about the question of terminal buildings. Those are all essentials in the development of the passenger side of the business; they are absolute essentials. I am raising these matters because the future of Prestwick as a passenger airport is not quite so secure as many of us imagined a few months ago. There is a feeling that it is not getting the attention which it ought to have.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on those points; that Prestwick will remain the second international airport to London, and that he will see to it that all facilities necessary but


now apparently lacking for receiving large aircraft at Prestwick will have his attention in the very near future.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Farey-Jones: The fact that my right hon. Friend has presented this Bill to the House emphasises a fact which hon. Members in all parts of the House have to face. The international position of airline operation today is quite a serious one. It is estimated that in the next five years traffic will double and receipts may automatically double themselves, but we have to face the most unpleasant fact that the British share of international traffic is not increasing proportionately. It is decreasing.
The undeniable fact is that we have created a monolithic monstrosity which should be turned into a holding company. In the holding company there should be at least twelve completely independent divisions, perhaps controlled by the holding company, and each of those units should have a maximum route mileage of 25,000 miles instead of the 90,000 miles of B.O.A.C. today.
There are certain salient facts to be borne in mind. On behalf of the International Air Transport Association, in creating which I had the honour to play some small part, a study has been produced which calls attention to four facts, which I propose to quote. The first statement is that, on the average of all the world's airlines:
Working capital amounts to the equivalent of only one to one and a half months' operating expenses … it is clear that there is no margin of funds readily available within the industry itself for the purchase of new equipment.
I presume that is why we are stepping up these borrowing powers from £80 million to £160 million.
As regards the capital position, the study states:
It is evident from the amount of working capital that such long-term debt and earned surplus as exist are already fully employed in the business and there are no free funds available for expansion.
On the turnover of capital, the study states:
The ratio of operating revenues to capital employed for non-United States carriers over the period 1947–53 has remained around 130 per cent. For industry as a whole it is about 150 per cent.

With regard to the ratio of operating profits to capital employed, the study states:
It is abundantly clear that the international operations, with which I.A.T.A. is primarily concerned, have not as yet shown any satisfactory return for the capital invested.
The last sentence is of vital importance to the House. The return in the case of B.O.A.C, according to figures produced this year and in previous years, is about 2½ per cent. The Chairman himself, in a discussion with news correspondents, admitted that it ought to be in the region of 15 per cent.
How can we possibly expect better results from a top-heavy organisation, which is what it obviously is? It has a route mileage which it cannot operate efficiently. I would remind hon. Members that I.A.T.A. has already come to the conclusion—it has been stressed by several right hon. and hon. Members in previous debates—that if one has too large a route mileage, one automatically produces inefficiency and sows the seeds of one's own undoing. Having spent a lifetime in air transport, I can confirm that.
What should be done? I have already hinted at it. If B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.C. are to play their part during the next fifteen years in the development of increased revenue for British air transport, we must have an approach fundamentally different from that represented in the Bill.
One hon. Member said it was very sad that there was still no British air service to South America. Why does not the Minister invite independent operators to run a service to South America and make some of the capital available? They could come under the umbrella of a holding company, which B.O.A.C. could become.
The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) always goes into these matters very strongly in the interests of Scotland. I do not blame him, for in Prestwick Airport there is a magnificent result of Scottish tenacity and brains. That leads me to ask why B.E.A.C. does not do something for civil aviation, in, for instance, the Principality, where civil aviation appears to have died? The Welsh airports are not being used, and there are no helicopter services there. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to the possible provision by B.E.A.C. of helicopters in the foreseeable future. We


have heard nothing about how they are to be used. Are they to be used on intercity services in the Principality or Scotland, or are they to be reserved for a service between London Airport and Westminster?
If the result of passing the Bill is to perpetuate B.O.A.C. in its present form, then we shall be holding an inquest on the Corporation in five years' time.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the Second Reading of this Bill. Before I speak about the Bill itself, I should like to take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones).
The hon. Member should bear in mind that the Corporations are only ten years old. It is a remarkable achievement that in ten years they have grown to their present size and that they are operating on every route in Europe and on most routes throughout the world. Since they were formed in 1946 they have set up a great record of progress. I believe that their rate of increase in the number of passengers carried is more than 25 per cent. each year.
The hon. Member asked why, if they were doing so well, the Corporations should be asking for greater borrowing powers. The answer is that they have been forced to come to the House with a Bill, because it enables them to buy jet airliners in the United States. If the British aircraft industry had been in a position to supply long-range aircraft to B.O.A.C. the Bill would not be before the House.
I am not criticising the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) and other hon. Members are right when they say that we want the best and most up-to-date aircraft for B.O.A.C. We want to make air travel cheaper so that all classes of the community can take advantage of it.
At the same time, I think we have the right to criticise the aircraft industry which has placed B.O.A.C. in this position. Our aircraft industry must take its share of the responsibility. I know many employees and officials of B.O.A.C. They are very disappointed that the Corporation has been forced to go to America

to buy 15 jet airliners and would much rather the Corporation had bought British aircraft had our industry been able to produce them.
I am not saying that we do not want to buy American aircraft, but I consider that it is fundamental to the Corporations that there should be an efficient aircraft industry behind them in this country to supply air liners for their long-distance nights. Would anyone suggest that we should construct railways in this country and go to America to buy the engines? Of course not. Why should we operate airline Corporations and go to America to buy the airliners? I plead with the Minister to make sure that this does not happen again. Apart from our low dollar reserves, we are a great industrial nation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge mentioned the Britannia. I do not want to criticise the Britannia too much, but it has not a very good record; £18 million of public money has been spent on the Britannia. This is not the fault of the Minister of Transport, but the figures were given to me by the Minister of Supply, who must bear some responsibility. I do not want to attack him tonight, because he is not present, but he must bear some responsibility in this matter. Whenever hon. Members on both sides of the House have endeavoured to get information about the Britannia, the Minister has always shown resentment and been very reluctant to give any information. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge nods his head in agreement with my comment.
Although £18 million of public money has been spent on the Britannia, it is not yet in service. From the Ministry of Supply, it almost seems to be sun tomorrow but never sun today for the Britannia. I very much hope that it will be flying soon and that the sun will be shining on the Britannia as it crosses the Atlantic. So far, however, we have seen no result for the many years which have been spent on it, and this places B.O.A.C. in a very poor position by comparison with the American airline services.
We want to help B.O.A.C, and therefore I do not oppose the Bill, but I hope very much that the Minister of Transport will ensure that the aircraft industry


stands four-square behind the airline Corporations in the future. We want to make these new services a great success in this country. The employees want to make them a great success. We want to make sure that air travel embraces all sections of the community. Let the Minister of Transport make sure that he gives the airline Corporations the tools with which to do the job.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) because it seems to me that one point which he made should be questioned and, if possible, denied immediately. He said that but for the fact that B.O.A.C. had to go to America for aircraft we should not have had this Bill. Personally, I do not believe that to be true; I believe that we should have had the Bill in any event, although perhaps in a slightly different form, perhaps without reference to the Export-Import Bank. If the hon. Member's contention is true, why does B.E.A.C. need £25 million more? I think the suggestion that the Bill is provoked by the fact that the aircraft industry of this country has temporarily not met the needs of B.O.A.C. does not bear examination.
The hon. Member also said that the Corporations had achieved magnificent development over the last ten years. No one can deny that, nor can anyone deny the very simple fact that, being the chosen instrument, they have had reserved to them the high-revenue section of the market, while other people, struggling along on their own money, have been restricted to the low-revenue section.

Mr. Beswick: Surely the reverse is true. The Corporations have had to operate services as a national duty and not because they have been producing revenue.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member, who has much longer experience of this industry than I have, knows that to be partly true but it is also true that the Corporations make their livelihood from the high-revenue section of the trade which is the majority of the work which they do.
I was also very pleased by the remark of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) that there was no extravagance in the meals provided on the aircraft. I can only assume that he was helping to promote the export of a product of his native land.

Mr. Rankin: That is not supplied free.

Mr. Williams: I will turn in a few moments to the question of the £25 million extra being provided for B.E.A.C. but I should like first to disclose a private interest in this matter for since I last spoke in a civil aviation debate in the House have become closely associated with one of the independent airlines. Perhaps I may previously have had prejudiced views, as the hon. Member for Govan probably feels, and it may well be that now they are even more prejudiced.
Personally, I have no particular objection to the extra borrowing powers being afforded under the Bill to B.O.A.C. I think that that is an inevitable result of the bad planning and the failure of long-range planning in the years gone by and of the Government's failure a year ago to take the right decision on the V.C.7. In relation to B.O.A.C. we should press a question which a number of hon. Members have already put—what is the state of the Britannia? How likely is it to be flying for B.O.A.C, and how soon? No longer can we afford, from the national point of view, the ominous silence on the state of affairs of B.O.A.C.
I turn quickly to B.E.A.C. and the suggested increase in its borrowing powers. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, these are being raised from a limit of £35 million to £60 million. On what basis is this change being made? I do not believe we have had a sufficently clear definition yet of the basis on which that extra £25 million is computed. Indeed, one might almost say that the cry of the bankrupt throughout the ages has been, "Give me another £25 million and I can make a success of my show". That is easy if one can dip into the Government's kitty. I believe that my right hon. Friend would say that at the moment the Corporation is making a profit, but I would query that. What is the position of B.E.A.C? Will it make a profit in this current year, as opposed to the Accounts which we were reviewing a week ago? Is it not likely that it will in fact show a loss, and


perhaps even a considerable loss, in this present year—a fact which hon. Members on all sides of the House would regret.
If the cry is, "Give me another £25 million and I will make a show of it", I think we should look a little more carefully at the details which I hope my right hon. Friend will give in a few moments. What control has Parliament over the £25 million extra borrowing powers which we are giving to B.E.A.C. today? Are we to pass the Bill, perhaps amended in Committee, and then say, "Good-bye"? Or are we to have an annual scrutiny of the position? I do not mean an annual scrutiny like that which we had a week ago when we looked at the Reports of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A.C. That is a postmortem, and I do not believe that a postmortem is enough. Are we to have an annual debate in which we can examine these details?
I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether in the Bill we are giving permission to B.E.A.C. to over-borrow in order to crowd out internal opposition at home. In view of the prejudiced state in which I live and to which I referred a few moments ago, it may be that I have a lurking suspicion on this matter, but unless I can be assured—and, I believe, unless the House can be assured—that B.E.A. is not in fact over-borrowing, there will be at least one still small voice uncertain about where this Bill is going—whether it should go forward or out altogether. It is not good enough for the House to vote £25 million more in borrowing powers to B.E.A. unless we have a great deal more information about the basis of that calculation.
An hon. Member said earlier in the debate that he wanted the Corporations to fly all over the world. To fly is not enough, even for a nationalised corporation. I submit to the House that the objective should be to fly and to fly profitably.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: It is a pleasant change to debate in the House a transport Measure which is almost completely uncontroversial. We have had many debates during the last year in which passions have run rather high and there has been strong feeling on all sides. Even the last Bill, the Road Traffic Bill, contained questionable Clauses which gave rise to a number of rather heated debates.
All the evidence this afternoon, except possibly for the views expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), suggests that the House is behind the Government in introducing the Bill and that its main purpose is uncontroversial.
I do not think that one can say that it is a Measure on which one can congratulate the Government, any more than one can criticise it. If the Corporations are to continue to live and prosper, it is really an unavoidable Measure, and we must consider it in that light. It is the duty of the House to scrutinise carefully, not so much the Measure itself but the purposes for which the additional loans which the Corporations require are likely to be spent.
The House, indeed, has taken that opportunity in full measure. Hon. Members on both sides have asked a number of questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) took the lead and asked at least twenty questions, all of them exceedingly pertinent and relevant, and other hon. Members who followed have asked many more. The Minister will have about sixty questions to answer if he is to satisfy the inquisitiveness of all hon. Members. I want to add a modest one or two to those that have been asked, some of them not new but which I wish to underline.
First, I should like to ask a question in a direction rather opposite to that put by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South. In the case of B.O.A.C, is not the Minister, in putting on a limit of £160 million, not drawing rather too tight a figure? The Joint Parliamentary Secretary told us that, according to his calculations, he thought that, at the optimum point, B.O.A.C.'s requirements would be just under £160 million. If he is planning five years ahead, I think that he would be wiser not to rely on such a tight balance-sheet, but to allow himself a little leeway.
If he thinks that the requirements are likely to amount to just under £160 million then, in this uncertain world, I should have thought that it would have been wiser to have asked for borrowing powers of £170 million or £180 million. It may be that the Minister has good reasons for believing that £160 million is all that he will need during those years; and we will be very interested to


hear his reasons. Nevertheless, from what has been said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I should have thought that his figure is a little too low.
Another question that I have to ask is this. I assume that all these borrowings will, as have the borrowings of the Corporations in the past, come under Treasury guarantee, and that there is not likely to be any change in that direction. I have no reason to anticipate that there will be such a change, but we know that the Government's financial policy is liable to alteration. For instance, there has been a change of view in regard to local government finance. It would be unfortunate if the Corporations had to go to the market to borrow at the existing market rate in order to finance their development. It is desirable that we should have an assurance from the Government that such action is not contemplated, and that all these future borrowings will come under Treasury guarantee, at the lowest possible rate of interest, so as to give the Corporations an opportunity to make a reasonable return on the capital involved.
When the Minister came forward with the very large proposals for the modernisation of the British Transport Commission's railways, we were told what the amount required by the railways would be over a period of fifteen years, and I think that the figure was £1,200 million. We were later given a rough estimate as to what this would mean from the point of view of revenue, in order to show that, at the end of the period, the expenditure would prove worth while, and that there would be an annual profit as a result of this very big capital expenditure.
The estimate had to be made over a period of fifteen years, a very difficult matter. Personally, I have my doubts as to the accuracy of any such estimate, and whether it is not likely to be proved either optimistic or pessimistic. However, we were given a rough estimate of what the profit or loss was likely to be from the investment of this substantial sum of money which, for the most part, will be new capital. I believe that £400 million out of the £1,200 million was to be in the form of new capital.
I think it would be reasonable for the House to ask the Corporations to give

us similarly some rough estimate of the result of the new capital which they require, amounting to an additional £80 million in the one case and £25 million in the other. Again, we should have to take any such estimate with every reservation, but I should have thought it proper, and following precedent, if they said "This is the capital we require; and we estimate, on the past and existing conditions, and as far as we can see into the future, that the result of this extra capital, and of these new planes which we want to buy with it, will be an additional annual revenue of so much, and a profit of so much." We have had no such figure, and I think that we should have had it. I wonder if the Minister of Transport can either give us such a figure, or tell us why the Corporations have not provided him, and us, with it?
The other two questions that I want to ask have already been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, but I should like to endorse them and to press the Minister to give an answer to them. What are the prospects for developing the South American route, not through some private company, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South suggested, but by B.O.A.C.? It really seems monstrous that practically every other European country which runs an airline has a route to South America, but that we have not. We know the reasons which, in the past, forced B.O.A.C. to abandon that route. They were regrettable, but that is history and I shall not go over it again.
I do ask the Minister to give us some assurance that it is the purpose of B.O.A.C. to start such a route again as soon as possible. Is it contemplated that out of this additional £80 million which B.O.A.C. is to borrow now, it will be possible, indirectly, may be—using some other planes or such resources as it may have—to develop a route to South America during the next five years? Can the Minister tell us the present position and the prospects in regard to this route?
My final point is, again, one which has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, but I have almost a personal interest in it. Is there any chance of the Princess flying boats being brought into operation? I say that I have a personal interest in it, because,


as Minister of Supply, I spent a good part of the few years that I held that post in trying to save those flying boats from obliteration. On several occasions, the powers that be said, "Look here, we ought not to go on with this proposal. It will be abortive expenditure." They gave one reason or another for saying so. I felt very keenly that we should go on with them and put them in the air as soon as possible.
I believed that there was a great possibility that these, or similar, flying boats might develop into the aircraft of the future, and might prove to be more popular than any other type. We know what the present position is; it is an exceedingly regrettable one. Incidentally, I might mention that my predecessor responsible for aircraft development—Sir Stafford Cripps—had a similar belief in the future of these flying boats, and supported me when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. I went to him as Minister of Supply and asked "Can we go on with these aircraft, which will cost a certain amount of money, in spite of the fact that there is no requirement for them? Will you nevertheless provide the money for completing their construction? "He said "Certainly," and was always enthusiastic about these planes, and anxious that they should be developed and put in the air. Can we be given any information now that they will one day fly so that we may see what they can do and whether the hopes which have been held about them are justified or not?
Those are the questions which I wanted to ask, and I think the Minister has got quite sufficient to answer without having any additional ones. I would add that the Government are, in my view, right in taking an expansionist and optimistic view of the future of civil aviation and in doing everything to ensure that the Corporations will be able to cope with with what I believe to be a steadily growing traffic over the next five, ten or fifteen years.
We have been given some figures by one hon. Member showing that the expansion in civil aviation during the next fifteen years is likely to be fourfold. It is, therefore, essential that the Corporations should have the finance which the Bill provides, so that they may possess all the resources, including aircraft, which they require to cope with the growing

traffic. During the coming years the Corporations will then be enabled to enhance their position in world aviation and we may be able to increase our pride in the skill, inventiveness and determination of those who work in the Corporations and in our aircraft industry.

5.52 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): As the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) said, we always seem to manage, even sometimes in very difficult conditions, to have reasonably un-controversial debates on this important question of civil aviation. Whether that is because we stick seriously to facts or not, I do not know. However, I shall try to reply as factually as I can to the many points which have been put to me from both sides of the House.
I think it would be convenient to start firmly on the grounds of the Bill and deal with the various questions which have been put about borrowing. First, to answer the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, the borrowing will continue to be under Treasury guarantee, but for the next two years, as I think the House knows, it will be by loan from the Exchequer, and those loans will be carefully assessed each year, and then monthly advances as required will be made to the Corporations.
If at the end of the two years the present arrangement is not extended, the Corporations will revert to their normal or previous position of issuing stock under Treasury guarantee. The rate of interest in either case, as I think the House knows, is the ruling rate in the gilt-edged market. That is the position under their borrowing powers.

Mr. Beswick: whether any monthly limit was being set to the overdraft, as it were. Are we being told that there is not a monthly limit but an annual limit, and, if so, what figure has the Minister in mind?

Mr. Watkinson: The answer is that each year the position will be carefully assessed between my Department and the Treasury, and that will take account of the previous year's position. Once an agreement has been reached, which must take account of how they stood the previous year, the borrowing will be


agreed, and they will receive an advance on that basis.
It was an interesting thought on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that the two Corporations should be required to chart their future as closely as the British Transport Commission has charted its position, but of course they are not really comparable industries. The Corporations conduct an international business—particularly B.O.A.C.—and many of their charges and much of their business lie not entirely within their own control but are subject to international arrangements of various kinds. Therefore, I am not sure that this business could be carried out in the same way as the British Transport Commission has carried out its business.
I was asked about flight coupons. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) asked me to explain this windfall of £350,000 for flight coupons. The fact is—and I think the House agrees—that it is the intention of the Chairmen of both Corporations to try to tighten up their accounting procedure, not only in connection with writing off aircraft but in every other way. This item which appeared in the balance sheet as "Sundry creditors" arises from an accumulated number of small items relating to uncompleted journeys over a large number of years. It would be unrealistic to keep it on the balance sheet as "Sundry creditors" and it was a good thing to get rid of it. Incidentally, it is a below-the-line receipt, so that it did not really come into the revenue for the year.
As to British West Indies Airways, the loss there, as has been explained before, was due to the fact that all the preparatory work on the Viscounts fell in that particular year, but the Viscounts themselves were not in service in that year. Therefore, we expect to see a return for that expenditure. I am advised that it was very largely the preparatory expenditure for the introduction of the Viscount services, which I am glad to say are doing very well. It is not, therefore, a continuing charge, and we ought to see some of it back.
To turn to a rather more general subject, many hon. Members have mentioned the general question of the Britannia. It has been raised in various ways—the

progress payments, the future of the aircraft itself, etc. First, B.O.A.C. has made progress payments because it signed a contract with the Bristol Aircraft Company which laid down certain terms in the contract. It certainly called for a series of progress payments which B.O.A.C. has paid. Where the loss arises is through B.O.A.C.'s inability, when it took delivery of the aircraft, through no fault of its own, to put them into passenger route service. I think the important point is not to try to argue now about whether the contract terms should have been varied but to ascertain what the prospects are of getting these aircraft into service.
I think that the fault which developed was scarcely foreseeable. So far as I know, it has certainly occurred in no other aircraft in route service, and I have taken a careful check. I believe that it has literally never occurred before. Also it occurs only at certain heights and only in fairly rare climatic conditions, chiefly monsoon conditions. Therefore, I do not think there is much point in going into the past history and arguing whether this should have been foreseen, because many people would say with justice that it could not have been foreseen.
The present position is that one modification has been made and seems to be proving successful. This is a relighting device which has already been mentioned. It is not a complete cure, but what I know the Corporation wants to do is to get the aircraft serviceable enough to be satisfactory in all respects in route service.
Take the present position of the aircraft, for example. It has flown 8½ million passenger miles in the Middle East during the last two or three months, and at times it has carried up to 200 passengers. Therefore, it would be quite wrong for anybody to assume that this aircraft is in any way unserviceable or incapable of doing the job which it was built to do. Otherwise it would not have flown 8½ million passenger miles with no troubles, and, as I say, at times with a load of 200 passengers, which is a fairly formidable load, even for a big aircraft of that type.
What the Corporation has always maintained—and I am sure it is right—is that a new aircraft like this, on which so many of our hopes are based, may yet prove to be an underestimated aircraft


when it really gets into service, but that it would be quite crazy to put it into route service until we had got as many of the "bugs" out of it as possible.

Mr. Cronin: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Britannia is not safe to fly over 16,000 feet?

Mr. Watkinson: No, I would not agree at all. It is not only a question of height. It is a question of conditions. The aircraft is perfectly safe to fly in any conditions, and has been doing so in the Middle East.
I was just explaining that the Corporation, which, after all, has to "sell it" and wants to get the highest passenger appreciation of it as soon as it goes into service, is, in my view, entirely justified in trying to get all the "bugs" out of it before it goes into service. I think that is the right decision, and I myself hope that we do now see the end of this difficult time, and I hope—though I am making no promises because we have had too many disappointments in the past—that the Britannias will go into service very early next year, and they will go into service properly modified, perfectly safe to fly, as a world-beating aircraft.

Mr. Beswick: The Minister has not really answered my question as to which of these snags have to be got out of the aircraft. It is a matter really of what he has not said rather than what he has said. I assume it is going to be put into service, whether or not it is still liable to flame-out, even though there is a modification to provide for relighting. But there is this further question, which is a matter of some argument, as regards guarantees. Most manufacturers are saying that they will guarantee the specification, and if they do not deliver an aircraft which comes up to the specifications laid down, they are prepared to incur a penalty. Has any guarantee been given? The specifications have not been met. Is B.O.A.C. in receipt of any form of compensation at all from the manufacturer?

Mr. Watkinson: First, there is no question of putting the Britannia into service, as I have said, on a sort of ad hoc arrangement, although it is perfectly safe to fly, as has been proved by the figures which I have quoted of the work which it has actually done. The

relighting device is, I think, proving quite satisfactory, but there will have to be other modifications also, which are now being tested again on an aircraft this very week, I believe, in East Africa. There is a modification to the inlet, and one or two other devices. I hope that a combination of all will provide the answer.
As to the guarantees in the contract, I cannot answer that without having some consultation to ascertain exactly what the contract itself says; but, so far as I know, it contained no penalty clause at the time it was signed. If it had contained a penalty clause, then I have no doubt B.O.A.C. would already have made use of it. If the hon. Member for Uxibridge would like an answer, I should be only too pleased to find out.

Mr. Beswick: I did ask for it.

Mr. Watkinson: Then I am sorry I have not got the answer at the moment. I think I can give the hon. Member the answer which he wants, because though I want to be quite sure, to my understanding there is no penalty clause of the kind which for example, the American companies are now offering. After all, this contract was placed quite a long time ago, and these things have a habit of developing. In fairness to the Corporation and to Bristols, I will say that I think they are concerned with one thing only, and that is to get these aircraft into service as quickly as ever they can, and those concerned are much more worried about that than about any financial arguments as to who shall pay whom in particular circumstances.
Apart from the Britannia, quite a lot has been said, and properly said, about other aircraft which are on order for B.O.A.C. The question has been asked, for example, whether B.O.A.C. has not got too mixed a fleet. It certainly has a very mixed fleet at the moment. I do not consider that it has too mixed a fleet. B.O.A.C. is now developing two main families of aircraft, the turbo-prop family, so to speak, of which the Britannia, with its successive marks, is one, and the pure jet family, of which the Comet IV will be the first and of which the Boeing will be a stop-gap, or gap-filling aircraft, so to speak, with British engines; and then the DH118 will again be continuing the Comet family but, of course, in a different kind of aircraft.
As regards the Boeing, the question was asked by several hon. Members whether the policy for B.O.A.C. should be "Buy British" or "Buy the best you can get". My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) was right, I think, in saying that, on the whole, there ought to be a two-way trade in aircraft; if we are to try to sell aircraft to the Americans, as we hope to do more and more, we certainly cannot say we shall not buy their aircraft if they have the best and most convenient aircraft at any particular time.
I do not think anyone doubts that the Boeing chassis, so to speak, is the best large jet airframe we can buy, and, that with Conway engines put into it, it is the best compromise we can get. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), who took the view that the initial cost of British engines, which is, of course, a relatively small proportion of the total cost, was the final cost. Of course, the operator has continuing expenditure on the engines, and that expenditure will be a sterling and not a dollar expenditure; if one looks at the life of the aircraft, the ratio is much more favourable.
As to the DH118, here again we are building on an established firm, which has, I think, had much more experience of jet aircraft than anyone else in the world; some of it may have been very unfortunate experience and bought at very high cost, but it is experience that no one else in the world has had in relation to stresses and strains and difficulties of fatigue, for example, at high altitudes. It is, therefore, quite right that B.O.A.C. should look to De Havilland for a completely new aircraft for a completely new purpose.
That deals with the question raised by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), who is not in his place at the moment. If we are to use airfields and airports all over the world, with different runway lengths and sometimes difficult weather conditions, these large Boeings are not going to be flexible enough to do the job. Therefore, we want a British jet which has as good a performance—it will, I hope, have a better performance—slightly less carrying capacity, but a much better runway performance, much better airport performance generally, and much greater flexibility.
I sincerely believe that there is a very large market for that kind of aircraft, if we can make it a success. That is why I said that the placing of the order by B.O.A.C. with De Havilland is dependent on a satisfactory specification being agreed between them. B.O.A.C. has very firm ideas as to what the specification should be. I think it will be agreed, and the DH118 may be a very fine and very versatile aircraft. If that be so, then it will fill our needs for the middle years of the 'sixties until presumably we have some kind of supersonic aircraft towards the latter part of the 'sixties, which is, perhaps, too far ahead to look at the moment.
As to the Princess, I must admit to being a flying boat fan myself, so there is no lack of interest on my part in that aircraft. The difficulty, as I think the right hon. Member for Vauxhall knows, is that there is only one complete, and the engines still present great difficulty, if we are to wait for the Bristol Orion. There is an idea that they could fly with Conway engines, but I understand that a lot of development work would have to be done. I do, however, promise that I will look again at this matter of the Princess. It is quite wrong to leave it unused. I promise that I will see whether we can make some use of what might be a very great aircraft. I agree with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall and with my hon. Friends that it does not seem right just to leave it in a cocoon doing nothing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick asked some questions about American aircraft. I have answered him by saying that there is no real break in the general policy of buying British whenever we can, but if we are to sell aircraft in the world, then I think we cannot just refuse to buy on merit anywhere. But this does not mean—and I want to make this quite clear, as I have made it clear to the Corporation—that B.O.A.C. can look forward to a future in which it can always buy American aircraft, if it has a preference to do so. This order for Boeings is certainly not a guarantee to B.O.A.C. that its policy can be "Buy American". What it means is that the Corporation has bought the best aircraft for its particular purpose at the moment, and we shall now do our best to see that its


future requirements are met by fully competitive British aircraft.
Several hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Farey-Jones) was one—have enunciated a doctrine which, frankly, I find difficult to understand. It is said that the more one limits route mileage, the bigger profits one makes. I undertake to examine the suggestion, but I must say that in an expanding air world with very rapidly developing routes all over the world, whilst one can over-extend oneself, I do not think one can refuse to take any chances which are offered, even on the South American service.
I am not, however, committing myself, for two reasons. One is that until we are much more clear where we are with Britannias and the DC7C, and, indeed, other aircraft, for B.O.A.C. it would be quite wrong to divert effort to a route which, frankly, in the past has never made a profit. I do not regard it as being by any means the most attractive operation for B.O.A.C. Therefore, I am certainly not committing myself at the moment to anything but the general statement that once its aircraft position is satisfactory, the Corporation will try to cover as much of the world as it profitably can. At the moment, however, the South American side of the Corporation's operations does not seem to me to be one which warrants over-riding priority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) asked about the disposal of obsolescent aircraft. The policy of the Corporations is that it will certainly sell aircraft for which it has no use, as it has in the past sold its Hermes and Yorks. There are difficulties, for example, about the twelve Constellations and the eight Stratocruisers which B.O.A.C. bought to replace the Comets, because the Corporation is under an obligation to sell them for dollars. I understand also that there is the possibility of a part-exchange deal with Boeings for some of the existing B.O.A.C. aircraft, which, again, will represent a net drop in the dollar price. Those deals must take priority.
Apart from that, when Pionairs and Elizabethans become available I hope that they will be sold in the most profitable market, and some of them, of course, are likely to be sold at home. Certainly

there is no policy on the part of the Corporations to try to retain aircraft which they do not need. The answer about the Prestwick Pioneer, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Govan, is that it does not yet have a certificate of airworthiness. As soon as it has one, no doubt its chances of sale will greatly increase.
I think that I have answered most of the points which have been raised—

Mr. Beswick: Freight?

Mr. Watkinson: As my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, the question of the Australian freight certainly did not arise as the fault of the Government or of the Corporation or the operations by the independent company. The fact is that the Australian Government, at the moment, take the view that their freight requirements are fully met by existing services, and that there is no room for any expansion. No doubt that may change as time goes by, but that, I understand, is their present view.

Mr. Beswick: Surely, the view of the Australian Government was that there should be only the one United Kingdom operator going into the Continent, as there was only one Australian operator coming from that Continent. The question I asked concerned the position of B.O.A.C. as regards the development of freight routes. Is the Minister encouraging the Corporation to go ahead now?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, but the view of the Australian Government was also based on the fact that they did not consider that there was at the moment sufficient traffic to support additional operators. Therefore, they considered that for the moment the present arrangements were adequate.
As for future development of freight services, to my mind—and I think it has been proved by results in the last few years—the air transport world is not an exclusive world for the Corporations, nor should it be, in their own interests, it has to be a world in which independent companies will have a part to play. They provide a useful spur to the Corporations and are often a useful ancillary to them. Many hon. Members, I think, have not taken sufficient note of the joint operations now being undertaken in many parts of the world between the Corporations and other independent companies.


It is a very good principle, and one that I should like to see further developed. That may be one of the ways of developing freight services.
This is certainly not the occasion to talk about independent companies when we are concerned with a Bill which deals with the Corporations, but as the specific question has been asked, I would merely like to say that it is not my view that the Corporations should regard themselves as having the prescriptive right to every kind of air transport business. This must be a mixed economy, and if it is, it will be very good for everybody concerned. Even if the mystic words "private enterprise" came into it a little bit, that would probably not do anybody much harm.
I think that the whole House supports the general purposes of the Bill. It is vitally necessary that the Corporations should continue their expansion, because if they do not they have no hope of keeping pace with, much less of overtaking and beating, their competitors. I appreciate very much the factual welcome which all sides of the House have given to the Bill—

Mr. Rankin: I did raise one or two other points about Prestwick which are more related to the Minister's own functions, I agree, but they are nevertheless contingent to some extent upon the Bill.

Mr. Watkinson: I answered one of the hon. Member's questions when he was not in his place, and I imagined that if I went any further I should be ruled out of order. If the hon. Member reads what I have said, he will see that the DH118 is an aircraft which may be very interesting for Prestwick for certain reasons.

Mr. Farey-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend carrying out any development of civil aviation in the Principality?

Mr. Watkinson: That is scarcely relevant to this debate. In any case, the

Principality is not quite without air services, as my hon. Friend alleged that it was.
I appreciate the factual welcome which has been given to the Second Reading of the Bill. The money is vitally necessary for the development of the two Corporations, and I hope that the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Barber.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AIR CORPORATIONS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 [Money Committees].—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDRHW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the borrowing powers of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation, it is expedient to authorise such increases—

(a) in the sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under section ten of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, being sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling guarantees given under that section,
(b) in the sums paid into the Exchequer under that section, being sums received by way of repayment of any sums so issued, or by way of interest thereon, as may be attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(i) raising the limit on money borrowed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation from eighty million pounds to one hundred and sixty million pounds and the limit on money borrowed by the British European Airways Corporation from thirty-five million pounds to sixty million pounds; or
(ii) authorising the Treasury to guarantee the payment of charges other than interest in respect of sums borrowed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation under the said Act of the present Session.—[Mr. Watkinson.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies)

6.17 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move,
That there shall be power to impose on goods imported into the United Kingdom duties of customs, chargeable in addition to the full amount of any other duty, where it appears to the Board of Trade in some case—

(a) that goods have been dumped in the United Kingdom, that is to say that their export price is less than their fair market price in the country in which they originated or from which they were exported, or
(b) that some Government or other authority outside the United Kingdom has been giving a subsidy, and provision may be made for any supplemental or incidental purposes and in particular—

(i) for the allowance of drawback in respect of duties imposed under the authority of this Resolution and the giving of other relief in respect of those duties,
(ii) for authorising the making of orders and other subordinate instruments,
(iii) for conferring on some Government department or other authority the function of deciding whether there has been dumping or the giving of a subsidy,
(iv) for determining the meaning to be given to expressions used in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Resolution, including, in the case of any definition of the country in which goods originated, provisions framed by reference to the country in which some stage in the production of any components or materials incorporated in the goods was carried out,
but the expression "subsidy" shall not be defined so as to include a practice which consists of any application of restrictions or charges on the export of materials from any country which favours producers in that country who use those materials in goods produced by them, and the expression "fair market price" shall not be defined in a way which requires account to be taken of any such practice.
I apologise to the Committee for my piratical appearance, due to going on gardening too late in the evening when I could no longer see where the twigs were. I am only too well aware that I look more like an evader of Customs duties than an upholder of them.
Parliament is already aware of the Government's intention to introduce an anti-dumping Measure. The method proposed is to counteract attempts at dumping by applying Customs duties that will be additional to any Customs charges which may already be payable. The object is not to raise revenue but to discourage dumping. Nevertheless, the Ways and Means Resolution stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the reason that the Bill will, at least potentially, alter the tax system of the country. Indeed, that is the reason why a Ways and Means Resolution in the case of this Bill is necessary.
It seems best, therefore, that I should move this Resolution as a Treasury Minister to show Parliament that tax changes which will be contained in the Bill have the full support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, will be ready to speak on any policy questions which may be raised in debate.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor gives his full support to the intended Bill because he regards it as an essential corollary to the efforts which the Government are making in the interests of our export trade to bring about the reduction and elimination of trade barriers throughout the world. The elimination of any barriers which restrict or restrain British exports from rising to the highest possible figure is highly important for the Chancellor in discharging his responsibilities for the economy as a whole.
I want to emphasise that the Bill will not be in any sense an effort to impede, or to give a new form of protection against, legitimate trade, and I include in that, of course, legitimate low cost trade from countries which, without any element of dumping, are well placed to make and sell goods cheaply. The object of the Bill will be to counter dumped or subsidised goods. It is intended that the powers given by it shall in general be operated in conformity with Articles 6 and 16 of the G.A.T.T.
The Motion paves the way for a Bill that will empower the Board of Trade to impose Customs duties in addition to existing duties on imports from any source of goods of any description where it appears that goods of that description


have been dumped or subsidised. Goods will be regarded as dumped if their export price is less than their market price in the country of origin or country of export. The terms "export price" and "fair market price" will be further defined in the Bill.
The powers to deal with subsidies are directed against direct or indirect subsidies to exporters and producers. They will not extend to other practices which may have the effect of assisting exporters but would not be regarded as subsidies for the purpose of the relevant G.A.T.T. provisions. The duties to be imposed under the Bill will not be applied to the imports of particular products from sources but directed in a discriminatory manner against goods which fall within a particular description and originate in a particular country or countries.
There will be provision to relieve from those duties an importer who can show that his goods have not been dumped, or that the actual margin of dumping is less than the flat rate of duty imposed by the order. Provision is to be made for the allowance of drawback of duties in appropriate cases.
I think the Committee will agree that it is not easy to have a comprehensive debate until the Bill is printed and has been studied. My object tonight is to commend the Motion and to express the hope that the Committee will accept its going forward in order that the Bill itself may be brought in and published as soon as conveniently possible.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: I presume that the appropriate time for a debate on the subject will be when the Bill is before the House. I realise that the Financial Secretary was speaking tonight with the utmost circumspection, but there is a phrase which he used about which I would ask him. He used the phrase "legitimate low cost trade." I wonder whether he meant by "legitimate" that it comes within the rules of G.A.T.T., in particular Article 6, which gives rise, I think, to this Motion. Taking these powers which the Government intend to take is really a good thing if they are very carefully used, but they can become very dangerous weapons, it

strikes me. That is, they might be used, though they should not be used, for giving protection, under the guise of protecting industry against some supposed subsidy. Whether there is a subsidy or dumping is often a matter for question.
I have two questions to ask. I hope I shall be in order in asking them now, but I have no doubt that I shall be pulled up if I am not. Am I correct in thinking that in what is proposed the Government would be in order in imposing some of these anti-dumping duties, say, for instance, on imports of certain foodstuffs from America which are subsidised, and whose price is below the American home market price, even below their cost? Would the Government be in order, for instance, in using these duties to protect the Indian textile industry, and some of the things which have been complained about recently, particularly the import of manufactured woven cloth which is supposed to be made from cotton yarn available at low cost to manufacturers in the rest of the world? As I read the details of this matter in the G.A.T.T. provisions, I take it the Government may not use these powers to impose a duty against imports of those Indian textiles.
I think we all realise that there is no point in our paying more for our imports than we need. Personally, I am in favour of free trade without interference by Governments, and if exporters abroad wish to sell their products to us, I am in favour of buying them as cheaply as possible, whether they are at below home cost production, or below their home price. That would seem to be entirely to our advantage. I am not in favour of Governmental interference either by export subsidies or by other things so as to distort the channels of trade, for they may damage home industries. Often they are temporary, and when the subsidies are removed industries have to be built up again. We want continuity and regularity of trade without interference.
Inasmuch as these duties are intended to be used to stop other people continuing undesirable trade practices, I give them qualified support, but for my part I shall watch the use of these duties by the Government with a wary eye, and I hope that they will be used only on the very rarest occasions.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in his having a black eye. He should now follow the principle I follow: never over-garden; it is a very dangerous thing. I thought when I first saw him that he was turning a blind eye to the economic consequences of Suez actions we have recently been having.
This Motion to introduce tariffs has been approved by a Free Trader and though we have not seen the Bill yet, I support the Motion on the whole, because this is a sensible use of State action to prevent dumping and export subsidies which, of course, disturb the pattern of trade, and can be used to export unemployment. However, we must await the Bill. We can now give only assent to the principle of the thing.
We shall be very concerned about the definitions in the Bill, I should tell the right hon. Gentleman, particularly the definition of "dumping" and of what is meant by an "export subsidy." Clearly, it is extremely difficult, indeed, somewhat dangerous, to define "dumping" and to determine how far to take into account transfer charges, transport charges, differential taxes, and all the rest of it.
It has to be noted that this was attempted in the Safeguarding of Industries (Customs Duties) Act, 1925, by which powers were given to the Government to impose just these anti-dumping duties. They were in force nine years but just because it was so difficult to define "dumping" I do not think a single anti-dumping Measure was imposed in all that time.
Export subsidies are as difficult to define as dumping. There are all these disguised forms of export subsidy—the cheaper credit that America is using now and which most exporters get, the remissions of social service taxes and so forth, as in France, which amount to an export subsidy. Then there is the way in which Belgian manufacturers get cotton cheaply from the Congo, because the Congo is borrowing its money very cheaply. All these subsidies are difficult to define. We shall look very carefully at the definitions in the Bill to see how far these sort of problems, and others with which we shall be dealing on Second Reading, are covered.
There is a certain suspicion around, as I have read in the financial papers, that the proposed measures are a bit of window-dressing and will be as difficult to use as similar Sections in the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. There are some people who echo the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) that the Bill will be a disguised way of introducing protection to guard us against entering the European free-market. It will be quite impossible for us to enter that market with a mass of restrictions and safeguards.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that the Board of Trade would be able to impose these duties, but I hope that proper provision will be made to retain the authority of Parliament to impose taxes on the people. It will be interesting to know by what sort of Order the Board of Trade will impose these taxes on the subject—for that is what they are, although their purpose is to safeguard industry. We shall scrutinise the Bill with some care and a little suspicion, and reserve our fire for the Second Reading, which is the proper time to debate the real issues that are raised by the Bill.

6.32 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) and the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) are right in saying that they will look at the Bill carefully and will watch the progress of the discussions. That is why it seems to us so wise of the Committee to treat this Motion in a quasi-formal way and to await the Second Reading and the Committee and other stages before entering into full discussion.
The hon. Member for Bolton, West wisely reminded us of the importance to our trade of avoiding the indiscriminate use and insisting upon the careful use of these powers. I do not think that I would go as far as he might want in, stressing the dangers of having these powers at all. We want to concentrate-upon the use of the powers, which are important as having a useful deterrent effect.
I should like to put the hon. Member's mind at rest. We shall certainly have in mind our international obligations and


national interests as one of the great exporting nations. We do not intend to tackle legitimate low-cost trade.
As the White Paper on Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) and the last proviso in the Resolution make clear, we do not intend to cover the export control practices to which the hon. Member referred in the case of textiles. Indeed, we think it would be contrary to the G.A.T.T. Article 6 if we tried to do so, because that practice is not a subsidy but a form of price control. As the Committee well knows, we ourselves do very much the same thing in the case of steel and coal, for broadly the same reasons as the Indians have been using these price and export control powers—for that is what they amount to in effect.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick referred to the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. I hope that he will not get too pessimistic about the effectiveness of the proposals which we shall be putting before the House by reference to that Act and its fate. It is true that only nine applications were ever made under that Act, and in no case was it found that there had been dumping. But there are very important differences between the proposals then enacted and the proposals for which this Resolution provides, and which will be found in the Bill if the Committee allows us to introduce it. I hope, therefore, that the reasons which made those powers quite ineffective will not apply to the Bill which we have in mind.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we intend that Parliament should have control in the normal way over the imposition of duties. The same principles broadly will apply as with import duties generally, that is that if we are imposing an extra duty we shall put before the House an Order requiring an affirmative Resolution.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I want to take up one point made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, with which I do not agree. He said that we should not be inclined to tackle the problem of differential cost, to put it that way, in connection with Indian raw cotton because we ourselves were guilty of similar practices.
Without entering into the merits of the Indian case, because it would be out of order to do so now, may I ask whether it is not the fact that we have not been guilty of similar practices? What we have done is not to sell goods to producers overseas at lower prices than at home but to sell to people overseas certain raw materials—for that is what they are—at higher prices than at home. That is a very material difference and it does not support the case for not acting in connection with the Indian problem.
I hope that these anti-dumping duties may be of use to deal with those cases where a home Government deliberately fixes the prices of raw materials in order to give exporters an advantage in world markets. That is just as vicious a form of subsidy as any other.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I should like to say a few words in support of the hon Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). It has always seemed to me, in all these controversies that have raged over these unfair methods of competition, for example, those which Lancashire industries face today, that these practices of giving a subsidy by indirect means are just as valid a target for Government action as the more blatant form employed in a more overt fashion.
Apart from the issue raised by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) and supported in another sense by the hon. Member for Cheadle, with whom I entirely agree, there are numerous instances of the use of alleviation of taxation as a concealed subsidy. There is in particular the removal or relief of social service taxation on exporters, which is being operated by France and Italy and other countries, to the detriment of our industry. No reference has been made to the problem of the seasonal dumping of agricultural produce into this country. Do the Government intend to use the Bill for that purpose as well?

6.39 p.m.

Mr. Low: I must dispose of the new points that have arisen in debate. Both the points raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) can be taken in our later discussions of the Bill. The words "subsidy" and "dumping" are defined in the Resolution in such a way—though I speak subject to


correction—that we can discuss those points when we debate the Bill to ensure that we meet them or decide not to meet them as the case may be.
The reason why I spent a moment on the other point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle was that the Motion makes it impossible to deal with those practices in the forthcoming Bill. It may or may not be the view of hon. and right hon. Members that the practice of keeping the home price of a raw material below the world price by controlling the export of that material is a wrong practice. What we are saying is that it is not a practice which should be dealt with in an anti-dumping or anti-subsidy Bill.
I said, further, that we do something similar in the case of steel, and to a certain extent in the case of coal. It is a fact that our steel is sold on the home market at below the world price, just as raw cotton in India has in the past been sold at below the world price to Indian textile manufacturers. It has been possible to do that, not by price control, but by the export control. In the case of our own steel, the price control exercised by the Iron and Steel Board is bolstered by statutory and voluntary limitations upon exports. So the practices are much the same.
I should remind the Committee that to a large extent the price advantage which Indian textile manufacturers have enjoyed in the past few years by this practice has now disappeared, or nearly so. That is because the world price of cotton has come down somewhere near the Indian raw cotton price. To be fair, I should say that the latter has never been below the cost of production. It has been below the world price because the world price was higher than it might otherwise have been owing to circumstances in the United States.

Mr. Holt: Before the Minister sits down, would he confirm that in the Bill it is the intention of the Government merely to carry out the provisions in G.A.T.T. in connection with subsidies and dumping, and that the Government will not bring in a Bill which is wider than the descriptions of subsidies and dumping in Article 6 of G.A.T.T.?

Mr. Low: The G.A.T.T. provisions are fairly wide, but they have some limitations.

Our trade with G.A.T.T. countries is of the order of 80 per cent. each way. Some 20 per cent. of our trade is with countries outside the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. At the moment we do not intend to put into the Bill all the limitations that are in G.A.T.T. The powers we shall ask the House to give us will, therefore, be somewhat wider than G.A.T.T. would allow us to use with the G.A.T.T. countries. However, that may well be sensible, and we hope it will meet with the approval of the House. It might be right to have wider powers for use with countries outside G.A.T.T., particularly countries with State-controlled economies; but that is a matter which we can discuss later. Hon. Members should not think, however, that even if we have the wider powers, we necessarily intend to use them indiscriminately without regard to our national interest as a great exporting nation. Of course, we do not.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That there shall be power to impose on goods imported into the United Kingdom duties of customs, chargeable in addition to the full amount of any other duty, where it appears to the Board of Trade in some case—

(a) that goods have been dumped in the United Kingdom, that is to say that their export price is less than their fair market price in the country in which they originated or from which they were exported, or
(b) that some Government or other authority outside the United Kingdom has been giving a subsidy, and provision may be made for any supplemental or incidental purposes and in particular—

(i) for the allowance of drawback in respect of duties imposed under the authority of this Resolution and the giving of other relief in respect of those duties,
(ii) for authorising the making of orders and other subordinate instruments,
(iii) for conferring on some Government department or other authority the function of deciding whether there has been dumping or the giving of a subsidy,
(iv) for determining the meaning to be given to expressions used in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Resolution, including, in the case of any definition of the country in which goods originated, provisions framed by reference to the country in which some stage in the production of any components or materials incorporated in the goods was carried out,
but the expression "subsidy" shall not be defined so as to include a practice which consists of any application of restrictions or


charges on the export of materials from any country which favours producers in that country who use those materials in goods produced by them, and the expression "fair market price" shall not be defined in a way which requires account to be taken of any such practice.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — RESTRICTIVE TRADING AGREEMENTS (REGISTRATION)

6.45 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I beg to move,
That the Registration of Restrictive Trading Agreements Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.
This Order was laid before the House on 6th November. The Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, makes, broadly speaking, the generality of restrictive trade practices registrable, and it requires the Board of Trade to appoint a date on which particular classes are called up for registration, and the period within which particulars are to be provided. Those Orders require an affirmative Resolution of the type I am now moving.
The present Order does two things. It selects certain classes of agreement for registration and it provides for a period of three months in which registration can be made. The agreements are defined in the Order, as they are in the Act, fairly widely. That is to say, they are not simply formal or written agreements, but can be informal and unwritten; a matter which we debated at considerable length on the Bill. We could have limited the Order by reference to certain trades or industries, but we preferred to define by reference to the type of restriction, selected—as of course they have to be selected—from those restrictive agreements set out in Section 6 of the Act.
The types of restriction with which we are dealing here are set out in the Schedule but, broadly speaking, they cover price rings and what is known as collective discrimination. The type of restrictive agreements which are not covered by this Order, though might be covered by a subsequent one, are market sharing and various arrangements for restricting production unless these form part of wider arrangements included in the type now to be registered.
The House will recall that under the Act special arrangements are made in the case of export agreements. They are exempted from registration unless they contain provisions affecting the home market, but particulars have to be notified to the Board of Trade under Section 31 of the Act.
Turning to the registration period, the Order comes into force on 30th November, 1956. There are three months for registration, during which particulars must be furnished. The last date, therefore, will be 28th February, 1957, or, in the case of any new agreements, three months from the date on which the agreement is made. Provisions are made in the Act for agreements which are varied or dropped. Particulars of agreements which are dropped before 28th February do not have to be furnished for registration, and where agreements are modified during the period I am talking about, the modified version is registered, not the original version.
I believe that during the last year quite a number of industries have done what all of us hoped they would do; namely, they have examined their practices to see if these were really necessary. I hope that they will examine these again before registering them, and cut out the dead wood or, if possible, do without them altogether.
I hope also the House will agree that we have lost no time. The Order was made on the day on which the Bill received the Royal Assent, and we are seeking Parliamentary approval as early as possible. In the meantime the Registrar has issued his Regulations, which hon. Members may have seen, and also a useful guide to registration. Registration is an essential prerequisite to bringing cases before the Court and I ask the House, therefore, to approve the Order.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I desire to refer to one point arising from the Order. Section 6 (1, a and b) of the Act dealt, in effect, with three categories of restriction—restrictions affecting the prices charged for goods supplied, restrictions affecting prices quoted for goods offered, and restrictions affecting prices paid for goods acquired. In the Schedule to the Order, for some reason which I should be grateful to have explained, the first two categories are dealt with under one head—in paragraph I of the Schedule—and the third is dealt with separately—in paragraph 2 of the Schedule. No doubt that was done for some reason which appeared to the draftsman of the Order to be good. I would like to know why this method was adopted in the Order.
I feel that the form of words adopted in the Order may have some bearing upon an ambiguity which exists in the Act, and which I think might usefully be cleared up now. As the right hon. Gentleman said, large numbers of people, companies, associations and so on, are now examining their agreements to ascertain whether they require to be registered, and it is very desirable that every assistance should be given to them to enable them to know what type of agreement it is necessary to register.
One thing which is troubling people—to my knowledge, it is troubling a large number of companies and associations affected by the Act and the Order—is a matter which was probably in the mind of the draftsman of the schedule when he made the distinction in the treatment of the categories to which I have referred. The ambiguity may be illustrated by reference to an agreement for the supply of goods in its simplest form. Take the case where A agrees with B to supply goods to B, and A says to B "For a period commencing with the date of the agreement, I will supply goods to you and to no one else, and you will distribute them at the prices referred to in the agreement and at no other prices."
Prima facie, that is a registrable agreement under the Act, because in that context A and B are each accepting a restrictive obligation. What is in doubt is whether such an agreement comes within the exemption set out in Section 7 (2) of the Act. I feel that the draftsman who prepared the Order had the point in mind, but I do not think he has really cleared up the ambiguity. The exemption in Section 7 (2) is expressed as an exception referring to goods supplied, and it does not refer—deliberately, one assumes—to goods to be supplied. The proviso to Section 7 (2) reduces the scope of the exemption, and I submit that the use of the words "to be supplied" in that proviso are not conclusive upon the point which I am raising. In the case which I give, where goods are to be supplied in future and over a period only commencing with the agreement, is the agreement registrable?
When goods are acquired and paid for, the problem to which I draw attention does not arise, for it is a completed transaction. But where, under an agreement, goods are to be supplied over a future


period and charged for, there is a real doubt. I feel that it is a doubt which was present in the mind of the draftsman of the Order, but I think it is a doubt which survives the Order. I should be grateful for any elucidation on the point from the right hon. Gentleman, or from his hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, whom we welcome in his new rôle. This is a point of considerable importance, going to the heart of the issue as to whether a great number of restrictive agreements now in use are registrable or not when they provide for future deliveries. A great many people will be grateful if the matter could be cleared up.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon bringing forward the Order, which takes the implementation of the important Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, a stage further. However, we ought not to be under any illusion about the Act placing a tremendous burden of work upon the legal and commercial departments of industrial firms. For instance, one industry about which I know something, in which there are some 70 manufacturers each having several hundred tripartite agreements between manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, has had to redraw and rewrite some 50,000 agreements.

Mr. Speaker: I ought to point out to the House that we are discussing not the Act but this Order made under it.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I was about to show how the placing of even this Order entails a great deal of work, which is, no doubt, very good for the Revenue, and we also hope that it is good for the Bar.
Very few people have much practical experience of the working out of the Order at present. The Registrar and his staff are acting on the principle that everything should be registered. I hope that it is not necessary to register in too much detail. For instance, suppose two fishermen have adjacent stretches of a river and enter into an agreement with each other to put back into the river all fish caught which are under six inches in length. That would be a restrictive agreement affecting the production of fish, which comes within the definition of "goods". Do Parliament and my right

hon. Friend want that kind of detailed agreement registered? It is a point to which attention ought to be given.

Mr. J. T. Price: The House ought to put the hon. Member's mind at rest on that point. I will do so if nobody else will. The purpose of the Act is to go for fish very different from the ones to which he refers.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: That may be so, but the mesh is small enough to catch tinier fish.
Under Section 10 (4) of the Act, it is required that agreements should be lodged which are not to be registrable. For instance, I understand that an agreement registrable on 2nd August but determined between 30th November and 28th February would still have to be lodged. Equally, in the case of an agreement made after 2nd August and varied after 30th November, both the original and the varied agreements would have to be lodged. That means a great deal of work, Is it not possible to cut it down? I should like to know whether it is strictly necessary to lodge that type of agreement.
There is no provision under the Order or under the Act for the removal from the register of agreements which have been terminated or amended so as to make them no longer registrable. The Registrar is no doubt reluctant to say that such agreements should be removed from the register, but I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider allowing him to remove such agreements without delay in future.
We do not want the machinery under the Act to be bogged down by a great weight of agreements which are not of any real effect, and which have been varied or altered in such a way that they are not going to be registered under the Act. I would ask my right hon. Friend to say a word or two upon the question whether the Registrar is being overloaded, and whether he intends in future to give any lead in connection with the removal of certain small agreements or agreements which have been varied so as not to be registrable, and have them removed from the Registrar's purview.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: I think that the mind of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) can be put at rest on the


subject of fish. If I correctly remember the debates we had on the Measure itself, any co-operative arrangement by fishermen would be outside the purview of the Act. I agree with the hon. Member that it may be that many commercial interests—managers, directors of companies, and so on—are now going to be involved in a great deal of work, and they will probably complain about it. But I do not think that there will be any complaint from the legal profession about the amount of work which will now fall upon it.
I therefore want to make a plea especially on behalf of small business men, who do not want to become involved in a lot of legal expenditure if they can help it. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can arrange for Orders like this to be made more simple, so that ordinary people can understand them; or, if we have to stick to this awfully complicated and legal language, which defies explanation except with legal advice, whether it would be possible to put in a longer Explanatory Note, to indicate just what kind of agreements and arrangements have to be registered, not in legal but in ordinary business terms, so that we can understand what is involved. That would be a great help to us all, and would reduce the amount of legal expenditure involved in this business.
I should like to ask three simple questions. First, the Registrar's guide, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, is a very great help to everybody, but, seeing that this is the first Registration Order under the Act, I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell us a little more about the Registrar's office itself. I should like to know what kind of organisation is involved, and what kind of results are to be expected from the Order, and also how the material will become available to the public. Those of us who have been associated with this work would like to know what kind of agreements have been registered, and what form they take. This is the first attempt to give us a full picture of restrictive practices in this country, and if we could get to know more about how we can get the information it would be helpful.
I should also like to know whether it will still be possible, under the registration

of these agreements, to catch the traders and manufacturers who are still going to carry on collective practices although they have now got rid of their collective agreement. These are the people who, by a general understanding, are going to enforce their individual agreements, as is provided for under the Act. I notice that the Scottish Chamber of Trade has asked the clothing manufacturers whether they will all, individually, give an undertaking not to supply co-operative societies with goods if the co-operative societies return the profits to the customers instead of to the shareholders. They could do that by way of individual agreements with traders, which co-operative societies would be unable to accept. If such an appeal is made for traders to act individually, would such an arrangement be caught under the registration procedure?
Finally, I should like to know if the Minister can indicate when the market-sharing arrangements and restriction on competition agreements are likely to be called for registration, and whether the present group of agreements to be registered would cover common price agreements.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I hope that I shall not be out of order in what I propose to say. I do not think I shall, because I want to limit myself merely to saying that I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend has brought forward this Order at the earliest possible date, and not only that, but has drawn, it in very wide terms. If there were any ground for the view expressed by some hon. Members opposite, and some people in the country, that we were not in earnest in our attempt to deal with monopolies and restrictive practices, this Order gives the entire lie to those distortions of the truth. This Order tackles the problem in a really worth while and workmanlike way, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend for the energy which he has shown.

7.7 p.m.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I shall not attempt to joint the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) in trying to provide for alterations to the Act. What we are dealing with now is the administration of the Act. We have to deal with the Act as it


stands and try to the utmost of our capacity to make it work as speedily and as effectively as possible.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) that it is wise to indicate the registrable agreements by reference to the type of agreement rather than to the trade or anything of that kind. I acknowledge that the President of the Board of Trade has done what he said he would do by including within the Order such things as common price agreements and the rather more pernicious restrictive arrangements of that kind, but I was a little concerned when I heard him say that agreements about market-sharing and the restriction of production might be registered at some time in the future. I am sure that I must have gained a false impression. I hope that he can assure the House that it is his intention that other agreements, within those parts of the Act which are not covered by this Order, will be proceeded with as soon as possible.
As for the time limit—upon which the hon. Member for Cheadle commended the Government for making it as short as possible—the case which we have made is not that the Government would not act under the Act; quite obviously they will do so. The whole trouble is that the Act itself is such an appallingly complicated and cumbersome one that it will inevitably be a long time before any agreement under it becomes forbidden in practice.
I would ask the President, if he can. to give the House some idea of the number of agreements which will be caught within the ambit of the Order. The hon. Member for Twickenham said that in the particular industry to which he referred there were about 50,000 of these agreements. If we are to deal with 50,000 agreements in only one industry we shall have an amazing mass of agreements for registration in all, which will make it extremely difficult effectively to abolish these restrictive practices. Indeed, it will be a lifetime's job.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I did not mean to imply that the 50,000 agreements were all registrable. I meant that individual manufacturers had been making new agreements, which in all might amount to as many as 50,000.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Well, they had a spate of about 50,000 agreements, and that is sufficient for my purpose.
The other point I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade is whether he can now tell the House when the courts are likely to start working on these agreements? They are to be registered within three months' time; how much longer after that will the courts begin to operate under the Act?
I respectfully share the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and also a certain difficulty mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) in understanding this Order. It is extremely important in these matters to have the position put as clearly as possible so that it may be understood by small businessmen without having to consult lawyers for the purpose. I appreciate that a guide has been put out by the Registrar. I acknowledge at once that it is a valuable guide, but it would certainly be valuable if the Registrar could give examples of what agreements might be thought to come within this Order, but which are not agreements he would regard as being registrable. I appreciate that there may be some difficulty about that.
I certainly would not ask him to say definitely, with examples, what agreements are registered. If he did so he would be inviting difficulties as businessmen would then be advised as to what were not registered. He could, however, go to the extent of saying, in view of the advice he has that he does not expect certain agreements to be registered. If he wants examples of agreements on which he could usefully give enlightenment, I am prepared to supply him with a vast schedule of them. There is no difficulty about that.
On the face of it, the Order causes a little difficulty in its language. When I first saw the way in which the Schedule is phrased, the question immediately occurred to my mind whether it was not entirely ultra vires, but when I came to work out the Schedule with reference to the definition provisions in the Order itself, I found it was not ultra vires, but perfectly all right. Nevertheless, any businessman would find difficulty in


knowing whether an agreement is registrable on reading paragraph I of the Schedule:
Agreements under which restrictions are accepted by the parties or any of them in respect of the prices to be charged or quoted for goods supplied or offered or for the application of any process of manufacture to goods.
Before any agreement has to be registered under the Act, there must be a restriction accepted by two or more parties. That is a small point, but it is the kind of point which causes confusion to laymen, and not merely to laymen, in reading a Measure of this kind. I mention that as a small instance of the kind of difficulty which arises.
The Explanatory Note to the Order adds practically nothing to the meaning of the Order except that it is helpful in its reference to the export provisions and the operation of those provisions under the Act. If there could be a fuller Explanatory Note, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough, to make the Order more readily intelligible, not only to laymen, that would be a good thing.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: With the permission of the House, I will reply to the points which have been made. As I spent a great deal of time on the Committee stage of the Bill, I hope I am fairly familiar with some of those points.
Taking first the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) about the agreements not covered by the Order. It is a matter of convenience that we should not now load on to the Registrar all registrable agreements. I selected what I think in the minds of many people were the most pressing and urgent classes—common prices and collective discrimination. As to the number of agreements, I have no idea how many are involved here, but as someone said, "Why use the crystal when you can read the book?" We shall have the Register and we have only to contain ourselves in patience until a few weeks or a few months after 28th February when that doubt which has exercised our minds and debating powers for quite a long time will be resolved.
When will the court start? The last date for registration is 28th February. Then there must be a period—for we

must be fair to the Registrar and whether the number is 50,000 or whatever it may be, it is a big job—in which he can set them all out and make them accessible and understood. Then there has to be a selection and the preparation of cases by both sides. August is not an easy month for the Bar, nor for the judges, and it looks as if it will be the autumn of next year before a case can be heard.
With regard to guidance to industry, it is difficult to give official guidance on an Act which, of necessity, cannot be made a very simple one. Looking back to the days when we were debating the Bill, I must say that Clauses 7 and 8, which said what was out rather than what was in, presented almost more difficulties than Clauses which said what was in the Bill. The First Lord of the Admiralty has written a book on the subject, and so, also, has my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). The Federation of British Industries has prepared an extremely valuable guide. And I share the view of hon. Members on all sides of the House who have paid tribute to the guide prepared by the Registrar which, within the limits of such a document, is of real help to people in deciding whether to register an agreement or not. When in doubt, the Registrar can be consulted. That is about as far as one can go, because these things are so complex and diverse one from another that to lay down generalities which go outside the terms of the Act or the Order might lead to more confusion than to help.
The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) asked why we refer to various types of agreement rather differently in the Order than in the Act. It is simply a drafting point. The draftsmen wanted to put "acquisition" in one section and "supply" in another. One can say that it is a good or a bad piece of drafting, but at any rate it was thought convenient, and it has no effect on the law on the subject.
With regard to the rather difficult point the hon. Member raised about paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 6 (1) dealing with restrictions relating to prices and terms and conditions, these cover agreements as to the price at which manufacturers will sell their goods—the ordinary common price, or horizontal price agreements—and agreements as to the price at which manufacturers will sell to


dealers, which is the vertical kind of agreement. On Committee stage, we had some discussion on this, but in our view both are registrable under the Act and come under this Order.

Mr. Irvine: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point which I raised about the scope of the exemptions under Section 7, which affects this Order? If he is not prepared to deal with the matter now, will he be good enough to say that he will have regard to the points which I raised?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will always have regard to any points made by the hon. Member, but I was dealing with Section 7. Section 7 (2), to which I think he referred, excludes only the straight contract of sale. That was why it was included. The agreements which are caught, which I have been describing, are those types of agreement in which there is a manufacturer and several dealers or one dealer and several manufacturers engaged collectively in coming to agreements about prices and conditions of sale. Section 7 (2) is of a more limited character than perhaps the hon. Gentleman feared. It applies to and exempts only the ordinary contract of sale.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) asked about minnows. I think they are outside the Order, which is the important thing from my point of view, and I do not think I will pursue that illustration. They seem to be more a restriction on production, which awaits the future of some other Order, and I will find out the answer before I lay that Order before the House.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) asked for a guide to registration. I do not think we can do much better than the guides which have already been produced. The Register will not be open on 28th February, because we must give the Registrar time to sort out the various information which comes before him, but it will eventually be open and capable of being inspected on the payment of a fee of 1s. It will be open to the public for inspection in the

ordinary way. An agreement amongst manufacturers not to supply the Co-op would be registrable.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Registration of Restrictive Trading Agreements Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CENSUS OF DISTRIBUTION (RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE)

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That the Draft Census of Distribution (1958) (Restriction on Disclosure) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.—[Mr. Erroll.]

Mr. Douglas Jay: I wonder whether the Government speaker would say a word explaining this Order.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The Order is extremely limited in scope and does not raise all the general questions about the Census of Distribution. Under the Statistics of Trade Act provision was made to prevent the disclosure of particulars furnished by individual undertakings, and powers were given to the President of the Board of Trade to extend the controls over disclosure.
In the exercise of his powers he has submitted this Order to the House. It provides that there shall be no disclosure of information sent in by individuals, even to other Government Departments or to the Import Duties Advisory Committee, which was allowed for in the original Act. The Order will help to assure everyone of the absolute confidentiality of the information supplied. It follows the recommendations of the Statutory Advisory Committee for the 1958 Census.

Mr. Jay: Are the Government in fact doing exactly the same as was done in 1950? If they are, perhaps that is the best defence of their action.

Mr. Erroll: I should like to give that assurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HUNGARY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Col. J. H. Harrison.]

7.25 p.m.

Mr. David Price: I am grateful for this opportunity of raising in the House the subject of the plight of the Hungarian people at this moment. I am sure that all hon. Members, in all sections of the House, are deeply moved by the heroic resistance of the Hungarian people. Indeed, I believe that the whole country has been moved by the events which have taken place in that unfortunate country in the last three weeks, but in our feeling of sympathy and praise for them I believe we all have a slight feeling of personal guilt and of being ashamed at our inability to help. It is because of that feeling of shame at our inability to help that I wish to ask my hon. Friend some specific questions about how we can assist the Hungarian people in the present situation.
I think we are all aware from reading the newspapers of the terrible retribution which has taken place in Hungary merely because the Hungarian people demanded those basic liberties which we in this House and in this country have enjoyed for so long—a retribution which is comparable with that of the Czarist Army against the Hungarian people in 1849. It is even worse than that: it is in the tradition of Ivan the Terrible, Ghengis Khan and Attila the Hun.
I think that the House should view what we could do in the world context. In my opinion this has been the most momentous event in world history since the October Revolution in 1917. It would be out of order for me to pursue too far today the significance of these events. I should like to take up the tale only as we have read it in the last three weeks. We saw an uprising of the whole nation, a levée en masse which has been condemned by the Soviet Union as being Fascist reaction. I suggest that never in the history of rebellion and revolution has there been such a spontaneous uprising of the people, and above all of the workers.
It has, too, been an uprising of the young—not just the youths of university age but of the children. If any revolution could rightly be called the children's uprising, it has been the events which have taken place in Hungary in the last three weeks.
We must also remember the moving appeal made to the world by Mr. Nagy, the Prime Minister of the short-lived Hungarian Government. We, as members of the United Nations, have a duty to answer that call. We have a further duty as signatories to the Hungarian Peace Treaty of 1947.
I know that there are those among us who claim to be realists and say that there is nothing we can do. The power of the Soviet Army is such that any assistance could only mean a third world war. I must say, for myself, that if there were the slightest chance of an international brigade succeeding, I should be the first to join it, but I fear that that is the slightly quixotic enthusiasm of youth. If we look at the problem realistically we see little hope of assisting the Hungarian people with military intervention.
Nevertheless, their position is so desperate that I think we are entitled to ask the Government to pursue any avenue of relief however remote the chances of success may be. I should like to ask my hon. Friend to consider the problem of the refugees. Here I would pay tribute to the many organisations in this country and throughout the world which axe doing great work to relieve them in their distress. I am sure it is the desire of everyone in this country to help. Therefore, I feel that the original offer made by my hon. Friend that we would take in 2,500 refugees should be raised. My information is that there are 32,000 refugees in Eastern Austria, so I hope that in his reply tonight my hon. Friend will announce that the Government have raised the figure of 2,500 to a much more sizeable figure because the need is sizeable.
I should like to hear from my hon. Friend that the Government have decided to offer more financial assistance. From their statements in the House, I understand that we have so far given £50,000: an initial £15,000 worth of medical supplies; £10,000 worth of food from the resources of the British Army of the


Rhine, and an additional £25,000 given to the Red Cross. I am hopeful about this, because my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, on 3rd November, answering a Question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) was encouraging.
A further consideration about financial aid is whether it would not be right and proper to offer some direct financial aid to the Austrian Government. That Government have done very great work in caring for the refugees as they come across the border. They have, in fact, borne the heat and burden of the day. In that context, as part of this problem, we have to consider the security of the refugees who are now in Eastern Austria. There is a feeling, not only amongst refugees but also amongst the Austrian people in the Burgenland, that they are not safe from possible incursions by Soviet troops. I would remind my hon. Friend of Article 2 of the Peace Treaty with Austria, signed in May, 1955, by which we have a clear responsibility to guarantee the territorial integrity of Austria as established under that Treaty.
I feel that the problem of the refugees is the minor problem. The major one is how we can in any way take the pressure off the Hungarian people in Hungary. As I said earlier, both as members of the United Nations and as signatories of the Hungarian Peace Treaty, we have a clear duty to do whatever we can within the general context of avoiding a third world war. The major problem can be defined quite simply. It is first, to induce the Soviet Army to withdraw; and, secondly, to create the conditions whereby the basic freedoms can be allowed to exist.
I here remind my hon. Friend of Article 2 of the Hungarian Peace Treaty of 1947, in which Hungary is ordered to take all measures necessary to secure all persons under Hungarian jurisdiction, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion; the enjoyment of human rights, of the fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of expression of Press and publication, freedom of religious worship, public opinion and public meeting. Let us consider those obligations in relation to the news which we had this morning, that the Russians

have been shooting students who had been reading manifestoes put on the walls of Budapest.
Let us now address ourselves to the problem of how we can get rid of the Soviet Army. I admit that that problem is not amenable to an easy solution, but my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, who have more experience and ingenuity than myself on these matters will, I hope, indicate some of the many and proper diplomatic methods by which pressure can be put on the Soviet Government.
Remembering Mr. Nagy's appeal to the United Nations, we must start first through the United Nations. I believe that we should press, and get our Allies and associates in the United Nations to press, for a United Nations police force to go to Hungary. That is the only proper logic of what both sides of the House have been pressing for in a different context. I cannot believe that the problem should be treated differently just because the units concerned happen to be Soviet troops.
The chances of achieving that may be slim, but let us at least press that United Nations observers should be sent to Hungary. And they should be sent in numbers—not just the odd man who will stay in the shattered relics of the smartest hotel in Budapest, but enough observers to go out into the countryside. Let them be drawn from all the nations of the world, and above all from those nations which are uncommitted in the cold war. I should like to see the Secretary-General of the United Nations go there. He has offered to go, but he has been scorned by Mr. Kadar's Government.
There is the further consideration that the Russians should open the frontiers. It is contrary to every concept of human liberty that people should be forced to remain within a country whose Government they detest, and in which they are suffering from the oppression of that modern slavery which goes by the name of Soviet Russian. We must press for that—that men must be allowed to escape from the hell which is Soviet rule. I cannot help feeling that the Soviet attitude may well have been taken from one of their nineteenth century writers, Belinsky, who said that the people were so stupid that it was necessary to bring


them to happiness by force. It is possible that the United Nations might be asked to provide frontier guards on the Hungarian-Austrian border.
We are also members of the Council of Europe. I know that there are hon. Members—I see some of them here tonight—who have been attending the appropriate meetings of the Council of Europe. This, above all, is surely a European problem, for I would suggest that Hungary has refound the soul of Europe. I hope that, when he replies, my hon. Friend will give some indication of the measures which the Government propose to take within the Council of Europe.
Then the Government have, on their own account, by virtue of being signatories of the 1947 Peace Treaty, duties of their own. The first duty, I suggest, is to keep up constant pressure on the Russians in every way we can; not just to lie down under this situation and say "This is the Soviet Army, and there is nothing that we can do about it." My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, in recent weeks, has constantly been telling us that we must not solve our problems by appeasement. Are we going to pursue a policy of appeasement towards Hungary?
Furthermore, we must give no public evidence of approving of Mr. Kadar's puppet Government. At the same time, we must not take the obvious, emotional step of cutting off diplomatic relations. I believe that it is important in the interests of the Hungarian people themselves to keep open the channels of communication between us. However, we should do nothing in a way to suggest that we acknowledge this "Tank" Government as the genuine Government of the people of Hungary.
I should also like my hon. Friend to press the Russians to release Colonel Maleter and Colonel Kovacs, who were taken into captivity by a despicable trick. They were brought under safe conduct to negotiate, and were then immediately clapped into prison—typical of the value which can be placed in the sanctity of a safe conduct when given by the present Russian rulers.
Above all, we must mobilise public opinion. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us what steps the Government may be

taking in that direction. The more our disapproval of what has gone on can appear official, and not merely the disapproval of we ordinary people who happen to have strayed into politics, the better it will be.
The most urgent problem of all relates to the hideous deportations which are now taking place—and let not the Soviet Government try to deny that they have been made. They denied the deportations in the Baltic, but we know where the Lithuanians, the Letts and the Esthonians are now—scattered over 3,000 miles of Siberia. The root of the problem of the present plight of the Hungarian people is how to remove Hungary from being within the Iron Curtain and within the Soviet sphere of influence. In the end, the only way in which we can get lasting relief for them is by a settlement of the whole problem of Europe.
There was a time, a few months ago, when some of us were hopeful that the Iron Curtain was beginning to be lifted; that there was a chance of honourable co-existence. But Soviet action in Hungary has shown that honourable coexistence is a long way off and that we are back to the old system of co-existence in mutual fear. We have been hoping for better things, and there was evidence that that hope was reciprocated at least by some of the elements in the Soviet hierarchy. Many of us remember the pleasure given by the visit of the Bolshoi Theatre Ballet Company here. But the reality of Soviet force has played traitor to our hopes, and even Ulanova at her most lyrical cannot erase the tears of a single Hungarian orphan.
However, we must not go to the other extreme and allow emotion so to affect our good sense that we find ourselves permanently cut off from contact with the Soviet Union. One's immediate reaction is to cut off all diplomatic relations, but unless we are to put ourselves immediately into a third world war we have to maintain contact and keep open the channels of communication. As I see it, at some stage we have to talk with the Russians and do a general deal. I hate to use that word, but it comes to that. When is the right moment is not for me to say, but it is probably not at the present time. That, as I see it, is the best way in the long run in which we can relieve the


Hungarian people of the hideous pressure upon them.
I have heard it said that the Hungarian people went too far. No doubt, to some arithmetical realists they did, but I believe that in their unrealistic appreciation of the odds against them they have refound the soul of man in slavery. I like to believe that even in Russia there is among some people a yearning for freedom. We have had evidence in the last two years of the revolts and strikes which have taken place in the slave camps, and I hope that Berdyaev will be proved right in saying:
The Russian cannot realise his historical destiny without revolt: that is the sort of people we are.
It may be that the soldiers returning to Russia from Hungary will talk about what they have seen and will realise the sort of people they could be if they acted, that in time all Russia will learn the story of the children's uprising—how the children attacked tanks with their bare hands because they loved freedom so passionately, and that in death they have triumphed, for they have shown the world that freedom and self-sacrifice are the same words.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the question I want to ask is not posed because I want to make a debating point or to introduce a party element into this discussion I have listened to his speech, which was very sincere and indeed emotional. The hon. Gentleman extended sympathy to the Hungarian refugees. I find it difficult to understand why he cannot extent equal sympathy to the Arab refugees whose plight is terrible and one of the most appalling sights in the world, as can be testified by those of us who have seen them. Why is not the hon. Gentleman equally emotional about them?

Mr. Price: I am discussing the Hungarian people tonight. If we have a debate on the Arab refugees, I trust that I shall show equal sympathy to them.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) for having introduced this subject. I should like to congratulate him on the way in which he has

put the case, although it has been almost entirely from a political point of view. He has posed a number of questions, the answers to which I shall be very interested to hear when the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replies.
I should like to say a few words on the refugee problem, for, as the hon. Gentleman said, several of us have recently been to meetings of various committees of the Council of Europe which are concerned with this problem. I myself was in Vienna last week presiding over a meeting of the Population and Refugee Committee of the Council of Europe when we considered this problem of visiting the refugee camps and the frontier.
Much of what we saw has been published in the Press, with photographs and graphic accounts of the conditions in the camps in Austria and the way in which the refugees are living. But no amount of repetition and reiteration would be too much to describe how the refugees from Hungary into Austria came not merely as refugees from oppression but as fighters for freedom with the light of battle in their eyes and a high spirit and morale which impressed all of us who went to see them.
I have seen refugees of all kinds. I have seen refugees coming from Franco Spain, from Hitler's Germany, from Communist East Berlin into West Berlin. But these refugees are different, for they have fought for their freedom, and it is in that spirit that they have come into Austria. Austria, unfortunately, is a small, poor country. Only recently has Austria regained her freedom. But her frontiers are free and open for all refugees who wish to enter and, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh has said, over 30,000 have taken advantage of the generosity of the Austrian Government and have crossed over that green frontier.
We in this country have no green frontier. We do not know what it is like to have another country right on our doorstep, with the possibility of people flooding one way or the other. It was a great experience to us who have no such green frontier to stand at the Austrian frontier and see the Hungarian guards only a few yards away and to see the way in which the side of the road which was in Hungarian territory had been wired and mined. A broad strip of black earth had been ploughed and raked so as to


show the footprints of those people who were escaping from the tyranny of Hungary into the freedom of the West.
We went into the camps and spoke to the refugees. I must say that many of them, young people—and the majority of the refugees are young and have had to walk a long way to get to the frontier—wanted to know why the West had not helped them. In pursuing that point the hon. Member for Eastleigh was perfectly correct in his political references. They wanted to know why the West had not helped them. They said, "Give us arms and let us go back".
Austria, of course, is a neutral country. The Austrians did not dare to do such a thing. They feared that perhaps some of these young refugees, if they were not quickly taken away from Austria, and particularly from the frontier area, might find a way of getting arms by raiding the gendarmerie or frontier posts, make their way back across the frontier and carry on the fight with perhaps dire results for the neutrality, peace and security of little Austria.
We spoke to various refugees and asked them where they wanted to go. Many of them wanted to go as far away from Europe as they could. They had seen enough of tyranny and war. Many of them wanted to remain as near as they could to their homeland because they hoped that one day they would be able to return. But many of them are anxious to go to other countries, and we ourselves have promised to take 2,500. I do not know whether 2,500 will want to come to Britain. I do not know whether the thousands who have been promised asylum in other countries will want to go there.
The work of sorting out the refugees and registering them is going on day and night. It is being done in the main by United Nations refugee authorities, by the Vienna University students who are working gallantly, and by the officials of the Vienna municipality and the Austrian Government. The whole burden of this at the moment is being borne by Austria.
Therefore, I would say that when considering the amount of relief that we should allocate to the Hungarian refugees we should consider the needs of Austria in conjunction with the needs of the Hungarian refugees, for since the end of the war Austria has had 125,000 refugees

of one kind and another, placing a burden upon the Austrian exchequer. Austria has not grumbled. She has not closed her frontier. She has made them all welcome. But it has made an enormous call upon her exchequer. Now that the main brunt is being borne by Austria, we must consider whether much of the relief fund should not be sent to the Austrian Government, who have promised that their Government auditor will keep a rigid check on everything received and everything spent. I believe this to be one of the essential things that we must do.
Next, the refugees who have been offered asylum in this country and in other countries should be taken over as quickly as possible. I do not know whether hon. Members have ever experienced personally, or have seen, the way refugees live. They sit around on their beds, crowded together, some 35 or 40 camp beds to a room, with nothing to do; they are not allowed out until they have been registered, and, of course, they must not escape back over the border to continue fighting. The children play in the rooms or in the corridors and, of course, are itching to get out somewhere into the fresh air and into a home of their own. AW the refugees are fed at regular times with regular meals, and the Austrian Government, in conjunction with the relief organisations, are doing exceedingly well; but the boredom of sitting around all day long, with nothing to do and with nothing to occupy themselves, is really a human tragedy, the extent of which has to be seen to be believed.
Such is the life of the refugees. If their morale is to be kept high, and if they are to be useful citizens in the future, then our work in bringing over our quota of 2,500, and the work of taking others to other countries, to their new homes and new lands, must go on continuously and quickly.
In our own country, as in others, there are various restrictions placed on immigration; various examinations, screenings and so forth take place. Some countries are worse than others; I will not specify them. I make an appeal that here in Britain we should waive all the usual restrictions which are placed upon immigrants, and we should take the refugees into Britain just as Austria took them


into Austria, as they come across the frontier, with no discrimination of any kind, whether of colour, class, religion, age, infirmity or state of health. We should take them as they come. Switzerland has done it; she has taken 2,000 without examination and without any filling up of papers, just taking the first 2,000 out of the camp. Sweden has done the same with 1,000, and Holland has done the same with another 1,000. We should follow that example and take our refugees in that way.
It may be necessary also to increase the number beyond 2,500. I have no doubt that Her Majesty's Government, if faced with a request to increase the number, will comply with it and take such numbers as wish to come to Britain. That is a matter which will have to be decided in the very near future when registration of the wishes of the refugees has been completed.
We went into these questions at the Council of Europe meeting. We sat until 11 o'clock one night, started again at 9 o'clock the next morning, and went on until 8 o'clock that night, visiting camps and considering the various recommendations and proposals which were brought forward. When these recommendations come to the Foreign Secretary, I hope they will receive the approval of the Foreign Secretary and of the Government, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will put them into effect.
What are these recommendations? First of all, a grant should be made to the Austrian Government over and above anything which has been collected or promised by relief organisations in order to tide them over the present emergency. Secondly, we suggested that out of our own unexpended credit balance from last year of just over £100,000 in the Council of Europe, we should devote £100,000 immediately to relief in Austria, and hand the money over to the Austrian Government.
Then came the question of receiving refugees and the manner in which they should be received. I have dealt with some aspects of that matter already, but a further very important question arises here. There are young people who will need educating, students whose education has been interrupted, university students, for instance. We must ensure that when

they come here, or to any other member country of the Council of Europe, their university education should be allowed to continue in order that they might realise the possibilities within them and complete their education properly. That, of course, will mean that they will have to be educated in the language of the country of their adoption prior to their continuing their university education; but there are no insuperable difficulties about that, provided the issue is tackled from the beginning and it is understood that the education of these students must continue.
Furthermore, it is desirable that families should be brought here without any discrimination whatever. We remember previous situations of this kind, when refugees have been selected in other countries and there has been careful effort made to pick out the young, the tough, those who can work, if possible young men, leaving all the rest, the old and the infirm. We insist that that should not be done by us in this case, and not be done by any of the member countries of the Council of Europe. I hope that the views on this matter of non-discrimination which were expressed so strongly in the Council of Europe will be noted and acted upon by Her Majesty's Government.
There are present this evening other hon. Members who have participated in similar meetings of committees of the Council of Europe. I know they will give their support to the recommendations which we took upon ourselves to adopt at this meeting in Vienna. It was a great experience to visit these camps and to see these refugees. It was a great experience to see the way in which the representatives of 16 nations sitting round a table came to a unanimous decision of a humanitarian nature, without any misgivings, drawbacks or hesitations. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will play their part on Britain's behalf in honouring the recommendations of the Council.

7.56 p.m.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: It is a melancholy fact that the one technique which the nations have perfected in the last ten years is that of dealing with refugees. I should like to associate myself with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) and by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger).
In dealing with refugees, speed is the essence of the cause. I am very glad to see sitting in his place the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department, because I am quite certain that humane consideration of our immigration laws at this moment is what is specially needed. There is no doubt that the majority of these people will not be equipped with passports. I imagine also that a number of them will have political affiliations which the Home Office might wish to deprecate. From the bottom of my heart, I hope that we shall put such unworthy considerations out of our mind.
In our community, we can absorb very easily the relatively small number of people who will wish to come here. We should make it very easy for them to come. It would not cost us in national terms any very large sum to make sure that all Hungarians who have left Hungary in those circumstances and who desire to come to England should be admitted and should be cared for on admission. I am certain that the interest of the Home Office is particularly important in this connection.

8.0 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: The House will, I am certain, welcome the opportunity of declaring its sympathy with and its admiration for the Hungarian people in these very grim hours. This is indeed, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) said, a moment of the triumph of the human soul, of the victory of the undying spirit of freedom after 20 years of Communism and Fascism in Hungary, and, indeed, of the spirit of all that we associate with Europe. It is fitting that the Council of Europe itself should be playing a significant part in caring for the refugees now coming from Hungary.
I know that the hon. Member for Eastleigh and hon. Members sitting opposite dislike intensely the linking of Suez with Hungary, and rightly so, because what has occurred in Hungary is so hateful that any British person must repudiate and recoil with horror from any suggestion that he is connected with it. I certainly would not say that Russia was inspired by the example of Her Majesty's Government in Suez to take the action which she has done in Hungary. This action follows a long line of imperialist aggressions by Russia.
Russia has since the war seized an empire and is now in the process, as we have been in this country in watching for the past half-century the dissolution of the British Empire, of watching with the much more rapid speed of modern history the dissolution of its own Russian Empire. What ought to go out from this House tonight is a plea to the Russian Government to recognise the nationalist claims of the Hungarian people, to recognise the nationalist claims of all the Eastern Europeans and to remember that inevitably it is fighting against history if it thinks it can drown those national aspirations in bloodshed.
Having said that, however, there can be no mistake that Her Majesty's Government's action in Suez and the Russian Government's action in Hungary differ in only two major respects: one, of degree, and the other that the British Government unlike the Russians have yielded to the United Nations and have abandoned their aggression in Suez.
What we are up against is that any nation naturally finds that the interest of some other nation runs counter to its own national interests. Egypt owning the Suez Canal entirely on her own would hurt British interests just as surely as Hungary's neutral and independent existence weakens the military power of the Soviet Union. What is wrong in each case is that both Britain and the Soviet Union, members of the United Nations, should run away from the United Nations Charter and seek to pursue their own national interests by means of military aggression. It is for that reason that the United Nations has condemned both of us during the last weeks.
It is certainly true that for years the game of the Soviet Union has been to divide Britain from her allies, to weaken N.A.T.O., to weaken the Commonwealth and to weaken the Anglo-American alliance and that she chose as the moment to strike in Hungary the moment of time when we were estranged from our American friends and when the world's attention was attracted to our own attack on Egypt. I am rather sad to think that it needs the crime of the Soviet Union in Hungary to drive the free peoples of the world almost hurrying back to the solidarity which we had begun to build up in the years which preceded these last few months.
If we want to help all that Hungarian patriots have died for in the last few days, the best thing we can do is to make every positive effort that we can to rebuild our shattered friendship with America, and to work inside the Commonwealth and inside N.A.T.O.
I thought that it would be of interest for the record if we ran briefly through the events of the last few weeks in Hungary, and I have drawn my facts from the Daily Worker. It is rather curious that I should do so, and it is indeed a condemnation of the Soviet Union that the story I tell is the story as told by the Daily Worker.
On 24th October, there were reports of demonstrations by 100,000 people, mainly young folk, in Budapest. I quote from the Daily Worker:
The quiet and orderly behaviour of the marchers was impressive.
That demonstration had been prohibited by the Government, but according to the Daily Worker of that date the committee of the Government party, seeing that the demonstration was a success, jumped on the band waggon and abandoned its meeting to join the demonstration.
The aims of the demonstration, according to the Daily Worker, were expressed in these slogans:
For a fully independent peace policy";
Fully democratic elections";
Uranium stocks to be used in Hungary";
Withdraw Soviet occupation troops".
There was no doubt, according to the Daily Worker, that this was a people's rising against an evil government and against foreign dictatorship.
It is true that next day the Daily Worker changed its tune and described the same events in these words:
Counter revolution in Hungary staged an uprising in the hours of darkness on Tuesday night. The Hungarian working class rallied round its own Government and party and smashed this attempt to put the clock back.
It also referred to youths shouting "Fascist slogans"—the slogans which I have just quoted from the previous day's issue. It also described how
Soviet troops were risking their lives to protect lives of peaceful population.
Next day, 26th October, the Daily Worker quoted Nagy's description of the rebels as counter-revolutionaires and

anarchists, but said that even Nagy had to admit that these rebels
were supported by part of the Budapest population, due to their bitter feelings.
Pravda was quoted on the same day as saying:
What has happened in Hungary in these past few days has not been a popular uprising against a dictatorial government
but an organised effort to overthrow by undemocratic and violent means a Government carrying out reforms and unprepared for illegal armed attacks. The Daily Worker on the same day described how the people of Budapest were hanging flags outside their houses,
showing joy at the successful breaking of the counter-revolution.
On 29th October, still according to the Daily Worker, Nagy ordered the ceasefire and said that the Soviet troops were being withdrawn from Budapest by agreement with the commander-in-chief, that he had formed a new Government and that the cause of the trouble had been because the party leadership had not broken away from its errors. In the same day's issue, the Soviets were reported as putting forward at the Security Council, where the matter was being discussed, Pravda's story that it was
an armed uprising of a reactionary underground movement against the legitimate Hungarian Government.
If this was a movement against the legitimate Hungarian Government, one might ask the Soviet Union, "Which one is legitimate?" Was it the one which had already been overthrown, was it Nagy's Government or was it the puppet Government, which, I hope to show presently, the Soviet Union was preparing?
On 30th October, this young Nagy government, beginning to establish itself and having in its control the newspaper of the Hungarian Workers' Party—Szabad Nep—declared in its columns:
Youth will be able to defend the conquests which they have achieved at the price of their blood, even against counter-revolutionaries who have joined them.
So that even if Fascists had come into the upsurge of freedom inside Hungary, it was the view of the Government that they could control any vicious elements which had crept into the people's revolutionary movement. On that day, the withdrawal of the Soviet troops had begun and, according to the Daily Worker, "fighting had stopped, but there


was still a fierce political struggle." As for the claim of the Soviets that the rebellion had been a counter-revolutionary, reactionary, underground movement, the Hungarian Government called Pravda's article "an insult" and said that the greater part of the Budapest population had taken part in the fighting.
Then, on 31st October, in the most critical hours of the Suez intervention, the Daily Worker reported a Soviet broadcast that Soviet troops would be withdrawn as soon as the Hungarian Government desired it. Whereupon, Nagy, who had formed a coalition Government of Communists, Social Democrats, peasants and other political creeds said that the Soviet troops had been asked to withdraw. He also said that it had been Geroe who had called in the Russian soldiers first and that Geroe would have to answer to the Hungarian people for his crime in calling in the Soviet troops. Nagy also said that day that one-party government had been abolished.
The next day, 1st November, the Daily Worker reported that Soviet troops had withdrawn from Budapest, but it also said that 60,000 counter-revolutionaries had come over the border. Those 60,000 counter-revolutionaries remind me of the Russian soldiers with snow on their boots who passed through England on their way to the Western Front during the First World War. The Daily Worker also contained the significant statement that Nagy intended to begin negotiations for withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact.
It was this last statement that I believe to be the most important of all. The revolution against the totalitarian régime, against the Stalinist group, was succeeding. The aims which had been there ever since the Daily Worker reported them at the first demonstration of the young folk of Budapest, the aims of freedom and independence, were succeeding.
What worried the Soviet Union was not the return to party government, not the liberalisation of Hungarian politics, but the threatened existence there of a new Titoist State, free, armed, and outside the military control of Russia. I think that at that moment Hungary, at least in the eyes of the worst group inside the Soviet Union, was doomed, just as I believe that ultimately an armed and independent Poland and Yugoslavia are doomed if

Russia has ever the power to deal with them as she is dealing with Hungary at this moment—unless the ferment surging through Hungary and Poland comes to the top, as, I believe, ultimately it must, inside the Soviet Union itself.
So the Kremlin went back to the old, classic Stalinist tactics. On 3rd November, the Daily Worker announced that a new Socialist Workers Party had been formed with Kadar as secretary. Yet even on that day a dedicated Communist, Charlie Courts, wrote in the Daily Worker:
Only after Soviet troops entered the fight did it become a national movement under the slogans 'Russki. go home' and 'Down with the secret police'.
He said that Russian soldiers were fraternising with the crowds and were refusing to open fire on them, and that never a gun appeared until security police fired on unarmed demonstrators.
On 5th November the new Government of Kadar was formed some sixty miles from Budapest, and their first act was to call for the second time for Soviet assistance. In other words, the revolt of the Hungarian people had been so successful that Budapest was in their hands and the Soviet action to crush them on the invitation of Geroe had failed. Even on the Daily Worker's own showing, Budapest had been won back for freedom. The only hope of the Soviet Union was to set up a new puppet government on the lines of others in history, backed by the military force of the Soviet Union, whose job was to go as far Right as they dared to win the support of some groups of the Hungarian people, but with the army, air force and navy of Hungary split down the middle, to use the Soviet Army to impose on Hungary again the tyranny from which she had just escaped.
The refusal of the British Communist party to condemn this is about the most shocking thing in the history of the British Communist party, as it is in that of the French Communist party. If the Communist parties in the free world would protest in the name of decency and justice and freedom and national independence their voice might have some effect on the Kremlin, and it is a sad fact that cynical groups in this country, in France—I hope, not in Italy—are still refusing to condemn the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union in the name of justice and liberty and decency is wickedly wrong.
What can we do about it? Obviously, the tragedy of tonight's debate is whatever we believe about this, everybody in this House knows that it would be wrong to intervene in Hungary and so risk the danger of a third world war. What we can do, as has already been pointed out, is naturally to give all the generous help we can to the refugees. It has been my privilege to talk with my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) about the very moving experiences which he had in Vienna lately. The British people are rising to the humanitarian appeal of the Hungarian refugees on a scale unequalled, I think, in peace time. The Government can do more.
I think, too, that we must support every effort made by the United Nations to urge the Soviet Union forces to get out of Hungary as quickly as possible. We have to remember that one of the most remarkable features of our own crisis in Suez is that it has shown that, although we are sometimes inclined to sneer at it, there does exist a moral force in the world, and that the only hope of the world is to build up world moral opinion, and all that this country can do in these days towards that end should be done.
I am a very simple fellow, and I believe that the only right thing that the Government can do is to accept the moral condemnation of the world of their own action along the Suez Canal. I would not expect the Government to go out of their way to apologise, but I would say that it is their duty to humanity to accept wholeheartedly the spirit and the letter of the majority decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations, even though those go against what the Government think are British interests. We have to rebuild our moral position in the United Nations.
I think we have to take every positive step we can for free and friendly intercourse with the Eastern European countries which have already won their freedom—Poland and Yugoslavia. Ultimately, our goal is to achieve friendship with the Soviet Union, because, paradoxical as it seems, I believe that if the tragic events of Hungary were known to the ordinary people inside the Soviet Union the mass of the Russian people

would be condemning the actions of their Government in these last few days.
Our main task is to hold on to world peace, not to allow even this tragedy of Hungary to induce us in the free world to hate the people as distinct from the rulers of the Soviet Union, for that might mean action leading to a third world war. If there is anything which Poland and Hungary have taught us, it is that the forces of the human spirit are unconquerable. If only we can hold on, under great difficulties and under great provocation, to world peace, just as Poland has moved, towards the free way, and the Hungarians sought to move towards the free way, so the Soviet Union herself will some day achieve freedom.

8.18 p.m.

Lieut-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King), except to say that there has been much moral condemnation over Korea, over Kashmir, over Suez and over a great many other subjects, now, under the United Nations Organisation, as there was moral condemnation under the old League of Nations, and yet, so far as we can see today, that moral condemnation, although duly noted on the records, has achieved practically little.
I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) on the happy circumstance, in this otherwise most tragic affair, that he should have chosen this debate on this Adjournment Motion on a day when there is much more time than usual for debate. I would emphasise something he said, which was referred to also by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger), who has given us an accurate account of what took place in the Council of Europe and about refugees in Vienna in recent days.
The point which I wish to emphasise and which was raised by both hon. Members is the tremendous burden which the Austrian Government have been bearing, and not only in this matter of Hungarian refugees. This has been going on for many years. Since 1945 up to last year the Austrian Government have spent nearly £20 million on refugees. Austria had under her care before ever the Hungarian emergency


started between 125,000 and 130,000 refugees from countries behind the Iron Curtain.
On one night last week when we were in Vienna a report was made to us. One has to take these figures with a certain degree of suspicion because the situation was so confused and things were happening so quickly that it was probably very difficult to get anything but a rather inaccurate account. We were told on the night of 12th–13th October that 2,019 Hungarian refugees had crossed the border into Austria. One has only to think of what the rate may be from now on. The newspapers report that an estimated 200,000 Russian infantry have pressed into Hungary to put down this rising with all their bloody paraphernalia. That undoubtedly will make a difference to the rate at which these refugees are forced out of their country.
There is also the stark fact of oncoming winter and starvation. Food is becoming increasingly short in Hungary. We know that the International Red Cross has in recent days got through convoys of medical supplies and of food, but that food is limited in quantity and cannot possibly go more than a little way to relieve the destitution and the need, not only in Budapest to which the convoys were bound, but also in other parts of the country. All these things lead us to believe that as the weeks go on the rate of flow of these Hungarian refugees into Austria is likely to increase the burden which, over the last ten years, has cost little Austria so much.
Austria's economy has been bled white by the occupation of Russian troops in many of her industrial areas and by the looting of valuable equipment and machinery from her factories. That machinery and equipment has been hauled across the border into Hungary and thence to Soviet Russia. Is it surprising that Austria's economy is groaning under this added strain? I plead with Her Majesty's Government to act quickly in direct financial aid to the Austrian Government. I am sure that that example would be followed by many other Governments in Europe, but I should like Britain to take the initiative in the matter.
I should also like to see Her Majesty's Government negotiate quickly with countries overseas, particularly the United

States and Australia, to ensure that any Hungarian refugee who accepts temporary asylum in some other Western European country than Austria will not thereby prejudice his chance of ultimate immigration in to the United States, Australia, Canada or any other country overseas.
It was extremely noticeable when we were able to interview what must have been a very small sample of the refugees in Austria last week that a large body of them wanted to get to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and America and almost an equally large body wanted to stay as near as possible to Hungary, perhaps to get back to help relatives and friends or in order to get a rifle into their hands to shoot more Bolsheviks. One cannot help admiring those people for that. They have a tremendous and impressive courage.
If Her Majesty's Government will bear these two points in mind—the approach to Governments overseas willing to take immigrants, and the direct aid to the Austrian Government—a great deal will be done to help those fortunate Hungarians who managed to get out of their country at this most difficult time.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I should also like to add my thanks to what I am sure are the thanks of all hon. Members to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) for having raised this extremely important matter at this very time when it is so urgently necessary to deal with this problem. I am sure the whole House will agree that the world outside Hungary is faced with a very important challenge. I will not dwell on the political side of the matter at all owing to limited time. Hon. Members have already dealt with that, and no doubt it will be referred to by others who wish to speak. I think that the challenge is to show whether the democratic free countries of the world are really in earnest when they welcome into their fold those who have been oppressed.
It is a very grave problem, one with which we have been confronted before. Not so many years ago I myself was approached by or on behalf of hundreds of people who were being forced to move from one part of the world to another and who. in many instances, were not allowed for considerable periods to land in any country. They were refugees


from the terrible tortures and miseries of the Nazi régime, and because in some instances they were not allowed to land here, they went by ships to seek asylum in other countries., Eventually, under sufferance, because they had been on the high seas for many months or in some cases for a year or more, they were allowed to land in Cuba or some other country. That is not the way to indicate to those suffering in lands where freedom does not exist that our way of life is better, and ought to be adopted by them.
If we in the free world meet fairly and squarely the challenge facing us today, we shall enable those remaining on the other side of the barrier to get information, directly or indirectly, which will induce them to follow the good example set by those who resist the oppressive force in Hungary to realise that there is and to strive for this other way of life.
I appeal to the Minister and to the Home Office to act as quickly as possible. I appeal to them to give every assistance to those refugees who want asylum in our country to get here as speedily as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) told us what he saw happening in Vienna and he has advised us in this regard. Nothing should stand in the way, neither passports, age nor health. We should set an example and act in cooperation with other countries, so that these refugees may realise that the milk of human kindness exists somewhere because they will be promptly and warmly received.
I believe this to be the climate in this country at present. I believe this is the feeling that people have in their minds and hearts. We should not ask refugees to give guarantees as we did on previous occasions. We should not insist that a person must show that he can become an asset to the country. In my view the refugee given asylum becomes an asset to the country in which he is received. He becomes an asset both morally and actually, and consequently is of not inconsiderable value to the country receiving him. We know this to be true when we remember how we have been amply repaid by people whom we have received, with open arms in the past, as in the case of the Huguenots and others.
May I now refer to one particular point. There are facilities available for supplementing the funds now being provided for the purpose of helping Hungarian refugees. I had a Question on the Order Paper today but it was not reached. I had consequently put it down for a later date, but perhaps this debate offers a favourable opportunity for receiving a reply. The question I proposed to raise concerned funds available in Sweden today which could be used for this very purpose. In 1946 our Government, together with the Governments of the United States of America and France, were parties to an undertaking with Sweden. It was agreed that Sweden would pay out of blocked German assets 75 million kronen to member States of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency. So far 68 million kronen have been paid and used to help Nazi victims. The balance of 7 million kronen was offered by Sweden to Belgium, but on conditions unacceptable to that country. Then the Swedish Government expressed their intention to pay the amount to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Is this not an opportunity for us to ask the Swedish Government whether when they make this allocation—the equivalent in sterling is £600,000—they will earmark it for the assistance of the Hungarian refugees and for meeting to some extent the cost of their care inside or outside Austria? I appreciate that we certainly cannot compel the Swedish Government to do this, but, as we were parties to the arrangement, I do not think there would be anything wrong in our asking them whether they would direct that the money might be used for the purpose that we are discussing.
I think this would also have the result that those who are being asked to give money privately towards the funds created in our country and other countries would appreciate that general moneys available for helping refugees were being used in this way and thus be prompted to increase their contributions.
Speed is of the essence in this matter. If we do not take the necessary steps to relieve the congestion in Austria, the refugees will no doubt also try to get on lists for countries other than the ones which they first asked to be put on, such as for America as well as for Britain,


and the result will be duplications and delays. Immigration should be made very easy for them, and there should be no question of producing return visas when they land.
I should like an assurance upon that last point. In many instances when an alien comes to this country, the Government insist that he shall have an assured place to return to in the event of his being requested to do so at any time. In this case—I would go further than that in cases of all refugees, but tonight I am pleading this case only—we should not make that a hard and fast rule. Indeed, we ought not to make it a rule at all that the unhappy victim of the circumstances which have occurred in Hungary should be subjected to the demand that he should have some other place to go to.
I am sure the Government are very anxious about the matter, as we all are. If they act speedily, it will help our country, apart from anything else, in any propaganda about our bona fides that we wish to send to the men and women living in particular in countries on the other side of the iron curtain.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: Like every other hon. Member who has spoken, I should like to express my appreciation of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) has taken the opportunity to raise this very important subject. Like the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon), I have had the honour during the last few days of attending a meeting of a Council of Europe Committee dealing with the subject. In a very few minutes I want to say a word or two about the political side, because that is what the Committee upon which I sit has been mainly concerned with.
Before doing so, however, I want to say something about the question of refugees. As I think has been recognised by everybody in this House, it is the most urgent and vital question facing us at the moment. First, I cannot feel that for us to take 2,500 is enough. I do not think that we should have put any ceiling on the number, in the first place. We should have sought, in this emergency and this stormy situation, to keep the gates free

and wide open for any Hungarian who cares to come. Admittedly there may have been a risk, in that bad characters may have been included, but goodness knows, the number of bad characters in this country is such that we can surely take one or two more, even if they are Hungarians.
The hon. Member for Goole quite rightly referred to the suggestion made by the committee over which he presided on this occasion, that the surplus in the Council of Europe budget for last year should be applied to this purpose. I think that it is a sum of about 112 million francs. I understand that this matter was referred to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, as it had to be, and, if I am right, it has been postponed to the December meeting.

Mr. Jeger: The Ministers' Deputies met and considered the matter, not the Ministers themselves.

Mr. Kirk: Yes. The Ministers' Deputies postponed the matter for a month. That does not seem to me to meet the kind of qualification which the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) rightly laid down, namely, that the essential in this matter is speed. I think it is disgraceful that there should be a month's delay. This is a European matter, and the Council of Europe, which is referred to by so many people as being very weak anyway, in this particular instance having been given the opportunity to do something, the Ministers have said, "This is quite a good idea. We will consider it in thirty days' time," That is not the way in which a true European institution should behave in a situation of this kind. I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some assurance that our representatives in Strasbourg will consider taking some action in connection with this important question.
I want to say a word about the political side of the matter, because the Committee upon which I and the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) sat in Paris has been considering it. Much has been said about the economic strain under which Austria is existing, but I want to say something about the political strain. We know that certain veiled threats have been made to Austria by the Soviet Union because of the help which Austria has given to the


Hungarian refugees. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give an unequivocal assurance that Her Majesty's Government stand by the guarantees contained in the Austrian State Treaty of last year, and that we shall not allow Austria to be bullied because of the humanitarian work which she has done for the Hungarian refugees. We should make it plain that we stand by our guarantees of her independence and neutrality.
I now turn to the question of recognition. Everybody in this House accepts that the Government of Kadar do not represent the Hungarian people, or any part of it; they represent only the Russian Army. I do not know whether any decision has yet been taken about recognition by Her Majesty's Government, or whether any decision is required, but I would ask my hon. Friend to say that if it becomes necessary for Her Majesty's Government to recognise the Kadar Government, for reasons connected with British citizens in Hungary, or whatever they may be, that recognition at least will be only de facto and not de jure, and that we shall never recognise as the legitimate Government of Hungary this gang of men who, by virtue of the assistance of a collection of murderers, happen to be in control in that country at the moment.
This is an important point for the people of Hungary themselves, because a great mistake was made when the United Nations accepted the credentials of the Hungarian representative to the United Nations. We and the United Nations should have said, "No, we cannot say that you represent Hungary". Mrs. Kethly, who was in New York at the time, had a far greater right to speak for the Hungarian people than any representative of Kadar in New York had. I hope that that mistake will not be repeated, and that we shall say very firmly that we are prepared to talk to the Kadar Government because they are in charge, but that we do not recognise them as being the lawful Government of Hungary because that they cannot be except by proving, by free elections or in some other way, that they have the right to represent the Hungarian people.
Also, we should insist, by the strongest possible diplomatic action, that the deportations of Hungarian citizens should be brought to an end. The Committee on

which I have the honour to sit suggested—we know perfectly well that there is no chance of it being accepted—that observers from other European States should be allowed to go to Hungary to see what is going on, especially on the question of deportations. I hope very much that the Government will back that proposal to the hilt.
It may be that the Russian authorities will refuse; almost certainly they will; but at least we shall have made the attempt to find out what is going on and to try to stop these young people, an entire generation of Hungarian people, from being transported to Russia, because that is apparently what is happening at the moment.
On the wider political issue, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make it quite plain that we do not accept the present division of Europe as permanent, that we do not accept the Yalta Agreement as anything more than a temporary expedient agreed upon eleven years ago, and that our aim is to bring it to an end by peaceful means as soon as possible. That, too, is something which will give courage and hope to the Hungarian people in this very difficult time.
We all know that the one thing which the Hungarian people want is something that we cannot give them. What they want—we asked Hungarian friends who came to see us in Paris last week—are arms and ammunition. It is regrettable but true that we cannot give that help without running the very grave risk of a European and a world war; but everything short of that, every moral and diplomatic support that may be given, I hope the Government will give and give freely and willingly now, in addition to the support which they should be giving, and I hope are giving, to the refugees from Hungary.
If ever there was a time when this country and Western Europe should take a moral stand on an issue, this is surely the time, because it has been proved—and this is something which many of us had given up hope of—that even after eleven years the people of a country cannot be indoctrinated by the particular poison which the Russians have been feeding in. To me the most hopeful feature about everything that has happened is that it was the young people of


Hungary who led this revolution and showed that they were not carried away by the indoctrination which they had had.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I am glad that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) and the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) made special reference to the position of Austria in this problem, because the House is very well aware of the special burden which that little country has had to bear in the matter of refugees over a long period. One hon. Member referred to some of the economic difficulties that Austria had to bear during the occupation. He did not go into detail sufficiently to complete the picture.
He might well have reminded the House that there was not only the burden of a Russian occupation—for that matter the burden of having four occupying Powers—the shortage of food, the burden of refugees, and the rest, but also the fact that the basic economic assets of Austria were being sucked away into Russia by the Russian control of the oil wells, the shipping resources and several hundreds of factories which were taken over as Russian factories. Fortunately, that aspect has been cleared up in the State Treaty with Austria, but for many years the economy was undermined by the activities of the Russian occupying forces.
Austria has a special burden, and a special emphasis should be put on the need for immediate help. What is needed in Austria is money. It is not much use sending lots of old clothes to be sorted. Of course, that is one way of salving one's conscience, but clothes can be obtained in Austria probably more easily than old clothes can be sorted out and sent in batches to people who probably do not need that type of clothing. Similarly, it is not necessary to send food to Austria. What we ought to send there is, essentially, money.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the dispersal of the refugees who are now in Austria. The history of refugee movements in the last ten years has been that many have been left where they landed. There is quite a probability that many of the refugees who are finding their way to Austria at present will be left there. Sometimes that will be by their own wish because they want to be

near their homeland, and in other cases because there is not sufficient welcome for them in other countries. Like the hon. Member for Gravesend, I hope this Government will be very generous and will open our doors wide to any who wish to come in.
An important point was made by an hon. Member opposite, and I wish it had not been made, because I think it is entirely wrong and can put a very dangerous complexion on this matter. It would be better if that could be avoided. That was the suggestion that many of the Hungarian refugees are wanting to get back from Austria, obtain a rifle and then shoot a few more Communists. I hope the Minister will make it quite clear that there is no intention of encouraging anything of that kind. The Austrian Government, I know, have no intention of allowing things of that kind. Otherwise it would undermine the whole purpose of the Austrian Government's very generous treatment of these people.

Mr. G. Jeger: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was in his place when I ventured to point out that the Austrian Government are exceedingly anxious that those young men who have asked for arms and ammunition and to be allowed to go back should be sent to another country as quickly as possible.

Mr. Hynd: Precisely. That is what I was assuming was the position. I am glad to have confirmation of it from my hon. Friend who has just come back from there. It is very important that that should be made clear.
The whole shocking problem which faces us at present is that we are back: again in those terrible post-war days, when people are being driven from their homes. Old men and women with children are having to fly from their burning homes and are trying to find a refuge somewhere. They have to leave all their possessions and have to add to this terrible army of refugees, cluttering up all corners of the world. There seems no final solution. I read a report by a correspondent in the Daily Telegraph the other day. He described how he was in one of these scenes where three large columns of smoke were all that was left of what used to be a great town. Old men were leaving their burning homes dragging children by the hands, and


women were carrying infants at their breasts, running away terrified, he said, under the droning of our planes, not knowing where to go, only knowing they had to get somewhere.
That was not in Hungary, but in Suez, at Port Said. That is what is happening in Hungary. We have an even more terrible picture there, because it is a bigger tragedy and a bigger crime. In the case of Port Said, the crime may be regarded as of second grade compared with that in Hungary. In reply to an hon. Member who said that all the appeals to the sentiment and good will of the world in the past years had had very little effect, we can at least say that the outburst of protest at the Egyptian affair did have some effect. It did bring the crime to an end, or at least to a pause. We hope it is an end of the bombing and burning of homes. In Hungary, it is still going on.
Not only countries not directly affected by these things, not only countries which have not to send their people away as refugees and whose homes are not burning, have a responsibility for this flood of miserable humanity, but also the countries responsible for those conditions. I hope that in the United Nations we shall make it plain, so far as our voice still carries any weight at all in that body, that the British people—whether the Government can speak with a free voice or not—demand that the governments of countries responsible for these atrocities and aggressions shall be called upon to bear a considerable part of the relief of the victims.
I do not know whether it will be possible to persuade the United Nations to take any active steps which would enforce a Russian contribution towards the relief of the victims of their aggression. I hope that our Government will be prepared to say that by some form of compensation we are prepared to make provision for some of the victims of our aggression. At least we are free to do that and can do that. That gesture of itself—a gesture of penitence—would at least put the responsibility on the Russian authorities to do something for the victims of their crimes in Hungary.
Reference has been made to the size of the contribution which the Government are making. To impose a limit of

2,500 refugees is far too inadequate in this situation and the amount of money which we are giving is ridiculous in relation to the problem. I understand that the amount for the moment is £25,000. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: It is £50,000—two contributions of £25,000.

Mr. Hynd: I understand that the West German Government have already given no less than one million West German marks, which is about £100,000, and that the West German trade union centre has given 100,000 West German marks, which is about £10,000. In relation to these figures I am afraid that the contribution of this country, particularly with the heavy share of responsibility which we have for this terrible situation, is completely inadequate. The Government should think again and make a much more generous contribution.
Many appeals are being made, but whatever contributions are made voluntarily or by the Government, they will have only a very small effect on the general problem. Clearly, the main responsibility which lies on Governments and Parliaments in the democratic countries is to find what action can be taken to stop this kind of thing happening for all time. It has been a constant story since the end of the war in 1945. There are 500,000 or 600,000 Arab refugees surviving in the camps along the Jordan border and the frontiers of Israel. There are refugees in nearly every country in Western Europe, many of them old and many of them sick—people who will never get out of these camps because they are old and sick.
One of the weaknesses of the arrangements for giving refuge to the refugees since 1945 has been that most receiving countries have either insisted on ensuring, or at least done everything they possibly could to ensure, that they got the most viable workers, the younger men and particularly the technicians. They have often tried to avoid taking families of these people, and even where they have had to take the families of viable workers, they have firmly rejected the old people who are unable to make any contribution to their economy.
I hope that there will foe no restriction of that kind on this occasion. The individual should be the only concern, and whether he can make a contribution to our economy or not should not be the basis upon which we decide whether he is acceptable or whether we can offer him hospitality. This has been one of the most difficult problems of dealing with refugees in the last ten years. I hope that it will not arise on this occasion but that we shall offer open hospitality to whoever is in need and whoever wants to come to this country.
I hope that, in replying to this very useful and timely debate, the Minister will at least give some assurance that the Government are thinking again about the scale of the assistance, both financial and otherwise, which they are prepared to give, and that we can feel that as a result of this discussion the House has made some contribution tonight towards relieving one of the most tragic and distressing spectacles which the world has had to face for many years.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. John Eden: I do not wish to follow the attempts of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) to try to score some point by comparing the present situation in Hungary with that in the Middle East. I do not think that by doing so he is doing any real service to the cause of the Hungarian people. Before leaving that matter, however, I should like to make just one point.
Whatever may be the views of hon. Members as to the rights or wrongs of the action sponsored by Her Majesty's Government in the Middle East, hon. Members will not, I am certain, wish to make any allegation at all against the integrity of our own troops. Our troops have gone out of their way to avoid causing loss of life and damage to property in Egypt and along the Canal. Indeed, on several occasions they have endangered their own security and the conduct of their own operations by their efforts to avoid inflicting undue hardship upon the people.
That is a point to remember. We did not embark upon an adventure such as the Russian troops have been ordered into in Hungary, which is nothing short of wholesale massacre and butchery on a vile and wretched scale which, we hope,

will not be reproduced in any country in the world. To try to gain some particular—although I do not quite understand what—advantage out of raising this question of our troops' action in the Middle East in the context of the present debate is, I think, unfortunate.
I should like to support the hon. Member for Attercliffe and other hon. Members in their plea that the Government should make some definite financial contribution to the Austrian Government. As has been truly said, that Government have had to bear the immediate and pressing burden of feeding and generally coping with the flood of refugees that has come into their country. If we were to say that the absolute basic minimum daily cost of housing and feeding one of these refugees is six English shillings, the present total of refugees brings Austria's total burden to between £9,000 and £10,000 a day.
That is the extent of the problem which the Austrian Government and people already have on their hands, and which they have been meeting every day since this emergency began. That burden upon them will no doubt increase, and it is for that reason that I am anxious to support what has already been said in urging Her Majesty's Government to give some specific financial assistance to the Austrian Government in their welfare work for the refugees.
There is no doubt that in this country there is a tremendous upsurge of good will, a spirit of generosity. All over the country, people are asking "What can I do to help? What part can I play? What contribution can I give?" It is not, as one hon. Member tried to point out, just a question of trying to salve their own consciences, but a genuine desire to help. People wish to make some contribution to alleviate the plight of these people, and to lessen, in a small way, perhaps, but also in a real way, the amount of human suffering.
The difficulty is that we feel so far removed from it all. As the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) has pointed out, we have no green frontier with another country. We are divided by the Channel from Europe, and that plain geographical fact also divides us mentally from Europe. It makes it more difficult for us to understand exactly what the situation is like.


We undoubtedly feel somewhat remote in this instance.
What we can do, not only as individuals but the Government also, is at all times and on every occasion to tell people who may not yet know exactly what has taken place, the truth of what has happened in Hungary. The Government should make use of their propaganda instruments to tell the story, not only in this country, which is important, but also in Europe. They should make certain, through the radio or whatever may happen to be the best means available, that the story is spread to those countries which are still behind the Iron Curtain, because it is essential that they should hear the true story, which they will not get from the Soviet occupiers.
I hope also that if we must go on, as I suppose we must, with these various cultural, scientific and sporting exchanges and engagements with the Soviet Powers, we shall not allow those events completely to cloud us from the realities of what Russian Communism means, and that we shall not completely lower our mental guard so that it comes as a complete surprise to us that this sort of thing can happen at all under Russian domination.
The fact that these things have happened should serve not only as a great shock but a great reminder to people in this country, and particularly to those who in the past have paid lip service to the Communist régime and have defended some of its worst manifestations, that these things are by no means past and that what has been taking place in Hungary could take place elsewhere.
As the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) has said, the duty lies upon us to maintain our position of moral strength, to improve upon that position if we can by emphasising on the one side the true facts of what the Communist régime stands for, by not tolerating woolly-minded thinking and weak-kneed approaches to the whole question of the Soviet empire; and at the same time by being constructive about what we ourselves stand for and by making certain that the opportunities that we have and which so many people take for granted, such as free discussion, freedom of speech, free education, and freedom in one's own individual life to lead a free and open life untrammelled

by the force of the State, are enhanced and preserved.
Never must we sink, through negligence or wishful thinking, into a position where this country is likely to be weakened to the extent of encouraging that very system which was once encouraged in those countries now behind the Iron Curtain, and for which today they are paying a very high price indeed. We have traditions of freedom and free institutions in this country. It is quite obvious that we must be morally strong in seeking to preserve them, and by preserving and encouraging them, we shall be playing our part in giving a message of strength and hope to the many millions who still suffer behind the Iron Curtain.
Those are some of the thoughts that I have on this subject. It is essential that at no time in the future, not so much in the immediate future but in the distant future, when fresh overtures are made to us by Soviet Russia, should we allow ourselves to forget what Russia has done in Hungary and what the Communist régime really stands for.

Mr. Winterbottom: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) would explain to us precisely what he means by "telling the truth to the world" in respect of the situation in Hungary. Does he not think that that is a rather dangerous thing to do, tantamount perhaps to throwing stones from a glasshouse?

Mr. Eden: It is quite simple. The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) does not, perhaps, realise that there is not freedom of speech in a large part of the world today. Many people in Europe and in other countries have not the same facilities as are available to the hon. Member for Brightside for appraising the situation in any particular country.
It is, therefore, an essential task for us to try to ensure that the true facts of the situation in Hungary are got across to as many people in the world today as possible, particularly to those to whom the truth is not readily available.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I shall have a few comments to make shortly about what the hon. Member for Bournemouth. West (Mr. J. Eden) called


"moral strength". But first of all, I wish to turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price). We may not always agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh, but he is one of the hon. Members in this House of Commons who make the House a more worth while place for his presence in it. All of us are deeply indebted to him for introducing this debate today. I add my congratulations to those which have already been offered to him for the speech he has made.
This debate has really been a salute from this House to the Hungarian people. There is no hon. Member in any part of the House who does not echo that salute for the magnificent stand by this very brave people in a tragic hour. What has happened in Hungary has wider implications beyond her frontiers, implications for the rest of the Communist world and, in particular, for the Eastern European Communist country. It is about those wider implications that I wish to speak first tonight.
In considering the implications of the Hungarian rising, it is important to look at the pattern of the Communist countries. There are three types of Communist country. First of all, there is the East European satellite, which is Communist by accident of geography; its Communist Government was brought in the luggage of the advancing Red Army in 1944, and when their new and comparatively unknown rulers were planted upon them by Soviet military strength, there were very few Communists in their territory. In fact, I think it is highly questionable whether there have ever been more than a few thousand Communists in all the East European Communist countries put together.
Secondly, there is the Soviet Union itself, the centre of empire. When one goes to the Soviet Union from one of the East European Communist countries, one finds a completely different political climate prevailing. Whereas in the East European countries one finds suspicion, doubt and despair and a feeling that they are merely footballs in the cold war and events are not decided among them; when one arrives in Moscow one finds confidence, and that particular sense of confidence which comes of being in the capital of a great imperial centre of Empire.
Thirdly, there is the new Communist revolution in China. China is perhaps the only Communist country where, if it were possible to hold a free election, the Government would have won hands down in the first place. I do not think we can compare Communism in China in any way with what has been happening in Eastern Europe or with the temper of opinion in the Soviet Union. It is to the first two types of Communist country to which I should like to direct my remarks, and first to the East European Communist countries—the satellites.
There has been a substantial change in all the satellites since Khrushchev's famous speech to the Twentieth Congress. When Khruschev delivered his posthumous assassination of the great god Stalin, he struck a devastating blow at the very fibre of the Communist movements in the satellite countries. As I have said, these Communist movements in the satellite countries were never more than a few thousand strong, and they were only able to rule partly because of the Stalin myth and primarily because behind that was the Soviet military might; but the Stalin myth was what they were able to put over to the people in their own territories. It was when the Stalin myth was destroyed that their own personal confidence was destroyed as well and the military might had then to become a practical reality if those régimes were to be retained in power.
For a long time in all these East European Communist countries, there has been a gradual pressure because of economic vicissitudes. Particularly in these countries, partly because they were nearest to the Western countries and therefore, have had greater contact one way or another, and partly because they were closer to contact with us before the iron curtain was rung down in the months following the war. They have been looking to the Western nations and realising that in their own economic hardship the Western nations were going far ahead and were enjoying much higher living standards.
The economic pressures in these satellite countries reached boiling point because of the result of the destroying of the morale of the Communist parties in them prior to the Poznan revolt. The manifestation of their outbursts first began because of the economic position,


but then it gained momentum at Poznan in June this year. Everything which has happened in Hungary has followed on from events at Poznan. One event after another has been part of the logical chain of circumstances which has followed. The political pressures which have been added to the economic pressures have been the real reasons for the final outburst which took place in Budapest at the end of October, and it followed directly on the example of the outburst of the Polish people and the reinstatement of Mr. Gomulka.
What I think will happen in Hungary, and, indeed, in Poland, is that the Soviet Union will realise the hard way, if they do not realise it the intelligent way, that they cannot rule people indefinitely by force. It is exactly what Bismarck said—that one can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it. And that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite will have to realise as well in the months ahead.
It is not only that they cannot rule by force that the Soviet people will have to realise. They will have to realise what Hitler had to realise about the Polish people, and they will have to realise it with the Hungarian people, that however strong and ruthless they may be, however dastardly the deeds which they perpetrate, in whatever form they may take, they cannot kill a people. Hitler could not kill the Polish people, and the Russians will not be able to kill the Hungarian people. All history has pointed to this. What we are witnessing is one more attempt to kill a people which will fail as a result of that. So much for the satellite countries.
As the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) mentioned in his speech, what is happening in Hungary is bound to have some effect on what public opinion prevails, and however it does prevail, in the Soviet Union. Some of the Russian troops will go back and talk about the events which have taken place in Hungary, and I have no doubt that if they are human beings—and they are human beings—they will have been moved by the terrible events which they have seen; but I do not think that we should be over-optimistic about the impact of a few thousand Russian troops going back to a vast nation where there is such a clamp

on inter-communication of people and news.
We have to realise that in the short run there is bound to be a number of people in the Soviet Union who will have been horrified by events in Russia. There have probably been many remarks suggesting the resignation of the Prime Minister. On the other hand, strong action will always evoke echoes in the hearts of many in the taverns of Tashkent and the inns of Irkutsk when it is said that Khrushchev acted to defend vital Russian interests, to save Russian lives and to defend Russian property. There will no doubt be cries of, "Good old roast beef of Russia". If it were possible to hold a Gallup poll, it is quite possible that the Prime Minister's status would be up by five points in the morning.
All that might happen in the short run, but it is not the short but the long run which really counts. What is happening in Russia—in some ways it is what is happening in the satellite countries too, although taking a different form—is that people in the Soviet Union are gradually asking for a say in their own government. One cannot train men to design jet engines or split the angry atom and deny them a say in their own government. When one educates people up to a certain point, one has ultimately to concede them the right to determine their own affairs. That will be the long term problem with which the Khrushchev régime will have to wrestle for the next quarter of a century, and it is something which it will not be able to abate. Whatever it may do in the short run, whatever repressions are perpetrated, it will not be able to avoid that long term consequence of what is happening in their world as a whole.
I shall not refer to China. Historically, China is to some extent in its Stalinist phase, and is so backward at the moment that there is no public opinion comparable with that in the West. Those are the two main consequences of the stirrings behind the iron curtain which are now taking place. What should be our attitude towards those events? What are the things we can do? I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Eastleigh has said and with what some of my hon. Friends have said. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) spoke about the short-term, immediate aid which we can


give to the refugees. That is the immediate problem. We have all been deeply stirred, and let us take action while we are stirred.
However, there are longer term decisions about which we should now be thinking. We have firstly to realise that in this particularly tense situation in Eastern Europe, Western pressures may lead to Russian repressions We therefore have to be very circumspect in any action we take, because it may have an effect the reverse of that desired. Secondly, if we accept that as a basis for argument, we should set our minds towards reducing the tension. The Russian Government is in an extremely difficult position in Eastern Europe. There must be very many worried men in the Kremlin at this moment. The number of men in the Kremlin who have cold feet is probably the same as the number of hon. Members in the party opposite who had cold feet a few days ago.
There must be many people with many doubts about how they can get out of this situation. It is to those people that we should direct our policies to see how we can create a situation in which the moderate elements can come to the fore. In the dangerous situation in Eastern Europe in which the Russian Government finds itself—and it is a dangerous situation—it may be that in the short run there will be some people who will be prepared to settle for zones of neutrality, people in the Kremlin who might be encouraged if we again brought out some of the Prime Minister's proposals at the Summit Conference for zones of neutrality in the centre of Europe. That may be the most practical way we can go about giving the people of Eastern Europe some hope of securing control over their own destinies.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger (Bassetlaw): My hon. Friend speaks about giving neutrality. Is not that precisely what Hungary proclaimed, and was not the immediate response from Russia not only repression, but massacre?

Mr. Donnelly: I am not in disagreement with my right hon. Friend. I entirely agree with him. If he followed my arguments intelligently, I have no doubt he would see I was agreeing with him. What I was seeking to say was that we, the British, ought to be taking the initiative, as the Prime Minister took

the initiative at the Summit Conference in 1955, and that we ought to try to see if there are not whole areas where we could do a deal with the Russians and say to them, "If you give neutrality to the Hungarians, we are prepared to concede certain things in West Europe as well."
The second thing I would say to my right hon. Friend is that we ought to be looking at some of the cards which we continue to present to the Soviet Union in securing the adhesion of the East European satellites. One of the principal cards we always offer to the Soviet Union and which we ought to consider again is that of the Oder-Neisse line. We have to be prepared to have the courage to say that what has happened in East Europe has happened; that the Poles have been thrown out from the Ukraine and the Germans from the eastern territories of Germany, and that in that situation two wrongs or even three wrongs do not make one right.
One of the best things we can do is to accept what has happened. As the years go by there will be fewer and fewer people available to go back to make their homes anew in the Polish eastern territories or the German eastern territories. The longer the Oder-Neisse line is left in dispute the longer it will be a card in the hands of the Kremlin to play to the Polish people. That is the sort of fact to which we have to address our minds when formulating a new policy towards Eastern Europe.
The third thing we ought to be thinking about is economic aid to the Eastern Communist countries. We ought not to be too obtuse about that economic aid. If we offer them large loans I think we shall play into the hands of the elements in the Kremlin who are saying that we are seeking only to overthrow the military situation in Eastern Europe, so that more repression will result.
There is a number of things we can do about practical trade agreements. For instance, we have our Export Credit Guarantees system, and at the moment that allows credits of up to three years. We could think in terms of four years. If the Russians were not to object to that in Poland we could then lengthen the term to five years. It is not gifts these peoples are seeking but good, practical business arrangements to enable them to


get on their own feet. These are political decisions which will have to be taken by the Government, and the Government alone.
The fourth thing we ought to be thinking about brings me to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West I shall come to his remarks about moral strength in a minute, but first I should like to deal with the less contentious parts of his remarks. I entirely agree with him that what fundamentally is happening in Eastern Europe is a battle for truth. It is truth which in the end will be the decisive factor. I believe the truth will always triumph ultimately. Ultimately truth will win out.
Therefore, we have to see that the mechanical means available in our hands for telling the truth has the best chance. First, there is the radio. The radio programmes which the British Broadcasting Corporation beams towards Eastern Europe are on the whole excellent, but some of the other radio programmes, such as, for instance, Radio Free Europe, are not always so good. There is always too much of the element of schoolboy cloak and dagger about them, and they defeat the objects which they are intended to serve. We must try to restrain the Ku Klux Klan type of approach to the Eastern European Communist countries, and we must stick steadily to telling the truth. It is not propaganda that will win, it is truth. One of the best ways of telling the truth is to give purely factual accounts of events and let people work out their own conclusions. That will be much more powerful in the long run.
Secondly, there is the stepping up of the efforts of such organisations as the British Council. Whenever I have been to Warsaw I have marvelled at the pictures which stand outside the British Embassy there depicting the daily life of Britain. Probably at this moment, at 9.30 p.m., there are 30 or 40 people standing outside the British Embassy looking in the lamplight at pictures posted outside the Embassy showing how people live in Britain, showing a day at a holiday camp or people at work in a factory and showing the interiors of kitchens, homes and schools.
A great deal can be done with the existing organisation of the British Council. Its main effort should be directed

at the Eastern European Communist countries for the next few years. I urge the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to consider very seriously what Her Majesty's Government can do to assist the British Council in this kind of work. These are the main practical things which I think we can do in the long run, but of course they do not in any way deal with the immediate short-term problem, as many hon. Members have already said.
I do not propose to go over the remarks of hon. Members about the refugees, except to underline once again quite firmly my complete support for what they have to say. We are living today in a period of profound importance in history. The events of the last few days in Eastern Europe can well have a profound effect on the future of Europe and indeed of the whole world.
I know that hon. Members opposite hate it when we drag up the question of Suez, but I can assure them that it is in no sense a party matter when some of us do so. I absolutely accept that there is no comparison between what has happened in Budapest and what has happened in Suez, in the actual nature of the events, but nevertheless the fact remains of the impact of Suez upon the uncommitted nations—it is not what we here on the Opposition benches think but what other people in other lands think.
I apologise to the House for the voluminous nature of my notes, I assure hon. Members that I shall not try to use them all, but I should like to draw attention to a few paragraphs in the Observer of Sunday, 11th November. It will be recalled that the dastardly attack on Budapest started on 4th November. Therefore, this is the Sunday immediately following those terrible events.
The passage is from the Observer correspondent in Karachi, capital of Pakistan, once the pride of the Conservative Party. There were almost as many old Cliftonians in the Pakistan Government as there are old Etonians in the Eden Government. The correspondent wrote:
Britain stands disgraced in the eyes of the Pakistani common man. and in spite of the Soviet reoccupation of Hungary—which is blamed on the precedent set by Anglo-French 'aggression' against Egypt—Russia is being looked upon as the champion of the Muslim


peoples of the world. Russia"s defence of Egypt thrilled Pakistanis, who are convinced that Mr. Bulganin's ultimatum to Britain and France to halt military action in Egypt was solely responsible for the subsequent ceasefire. Russian action has raised the godless creed from the gutter and made a lady of Communism. People here are beginning to feel that they have no reason to fear Communism and that their main danger lies in Western 'imperialism.'
That, in the week of Budapest, gives some idea of the tragic consequences which have stemmed from the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I wonder why the hon. Member did not mention the question of Kashmir, which arises later in that extract from the newspaper he has just quoted.

Mr. Donnelly: I am quite happy to agree with the hon. Member about Kashmir as well, and I certainly do not stand as any defender of Mr. Nehru's prevarication on Hungary. I want to make that absolutely clear. I think he has done himself a moral injury as a result of his prevarication.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the word "prevarication" should be used about a statesman whose nation is a member of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Donnelly: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is what I feel about it. I appreciate the thought behind your words, Sir, but I do not find any other word to describe the situation coming readily to mind.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member considered a little, he might find an expression which suited his sense without transgressing what I have said about the word.

Mr. Donnelly: Well, I profoundly regret his attitude. Sir. Returning to the full consequence of what has happened, the one great practical thing we can do to help the Hungarian people is to get our own record straight and to get the slate clean. If we are able to do that, we shall yet again have a chance of giving a moral lead to the Eastern European peoples, because they have looked as much to Britain as to any other country in the dark years of their long night since the Iron Curtain rang down upon them.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: In the closing words of his speech the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) referred to what he called

the most recent Soviet overtures, as though he expected them to be dismissed out of hand. I intervene briefly to ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State if he could give some view, when he replies—

Mr. J. Eden: May I interrupt, in case there is any misunderstanding? The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the moment when I spoke about possible future Soviet overtures; I was not referring to any present ones. But, should any subsequent overtures come in regard to long-term policy, we should not forget what they have done in Hungary.

Mr. Parkin: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, the Joint Under-Secretary of State might find time tonight to refer to the suggestions made in the last day or two which contain, I understand, a modified acceptance of what has been called the "open skies" plan. Moreover, I understand that acceptance of these Soviet proposals would involve the military evacuation of Hungary and of large territories in Central Europe. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), I stress the importance of trying to find a contact with those elements in the Kremlin who seem to have lost, for the moment, in the struggle to find a way of carrying out the new policy which was recognised and accepted by the Prime Minister.
I know that there are many hon. Members of this House, including some of my hon. Friends, who do not believe that there is a peace party in Soviet Russia. But I think it is a pretty desperate outlook if we are to assume that there will never be any change of view on the part of the Soviet Union. I should have thought that the tendencies to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke has referred—the spread of education, the desire for more "know-how", for more personal liberty, the desire to study methods of self-government in other countries—must inevitably bring about the sort of changes which seem to have been foreshadowed by the approaches of the latest Soviet leaders to Tito and to the Prime Minister of this country and in their twentieth party congress.
The Foreign Office is better advised than any of us on this side of the House as to exactly where the weight lies in personalities. I am not able to nominate


one candidate or another for the job of being the peaceful leader to emerge from the Kremlin, but at least it seems to me that there has been, in that Government in the last few weeks, indecision and a great struggle going on.
I only regret that more people on the Left have not been able to express the sort of opinions which have been expressed in this House, of unqualified disagreement with the decision finally reached in the Kremlin. I do not think it helps at all for people to try to sit on both sides of the fence. We should say bluntly, even those who, like myself, believe that there is a possibility of peaceful progress in the Kremlin, "You have made a colossal blunder and have lost a wonderful chance of relaxing tension".
It is a great pity that the Prime Minister of Great Britain was not able to intervene at the earliest moment in the developments in Hungary and say, "The new peace policy which you unfolded to us, the new attitude of your party at your twentieth congress, seemed to offer the best hope of relaxing tension and bettering relations than anything that had happened since the war, but if you have any reservations on military grounds, if you are afraid that if you "let it rip" you will lose some occupation zones and strong points or bases, something to which you attached a great deal of value when these things were agreed between the Allied leaders just before the end of the war, let us renegotiate security now and you make your proposals and we will make our counterproposals."
I had thought that what had really brought about a more optimistic attitude on the part of Her Majesty's Government a few months ago was that they had come to the conclusion that the Russians really wanted a settlement. If one has only two points of disagreement and believes that if those are settled one's opponents in the discussion will produce two more, there is no future in pursuing the discussion, but if one is really determined to reach a settlement, it does not matter how long the list is.
That is why I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will say something about the latest proposals and tell us how far they represent something new and how far they may be a rehash of previous

proposals which have been turned down for specific reasons, or whether there is anything in them which would enable the Government to pick up the opportunity which might have been taken earlier to show the peace party in the Kremlin, the more liberal-minded people in the Russian Government, that there is support for them in the West if they can find a way to reverse the last lamentable turn of policy and again pick up the policy of liberalisation in respect of the other Communist countries which they had announced.
Other discussions could arise out of that, though the discussions on security are the main ones. It seems to us ridiculous that the Russians should continue to maintain that they are militarily insecure, but many infantile obsessions persist throughout our own life. It is worth while investigating a means of laying the ancient bogy which obsesses them.
Efforts should not cease at that point. There would be an opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke has suggested, for discussing economic aid to the countries of Eastern Europe, which, of course, would once more put discussions on a peaceful basis of sensible planning instead of their being in terms of military strategy.
I always thought that the tragedy of Czechoslovakia in the years after the war was that the five-year plan of development which her own people passionately wanted fulfilled was a plan of industrial tranformation to emancipate them from the thraldom of German occupation. They had been the satellites of German heavy industry, and they wanted a heavy industry of their own. However, at the time they were building up their plan our own Government were unwilling to help them for two reasons First, we had not the means, and, secondly, there was no desire in the West to strengthen the position of the Communist Party in Czechoslovakia.
Their friends the Russians, on the other hand, were extremely unwilling to help them because they did not want to see such industrial plants placed so near a military frontier. They preferred such plants behind the Urals, well out of the way, where they could not be spotted. So the Czechs got virtually nothing. Now is the time when such plans should be


worked out on their own merits, and not as part of a military set-up.
Late as the hour is, politically, I think that there is still a chance for the British Government and the Prime Minister to take an initiative in this matter, which will lead on to fresh discussions on European security, which may yet lead us to a peaceful and free development all over Europe.

9.46 p.m.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I should like to intervene for one or two moments to say that so much of what was said by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) would be agreed to by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I was intensely interested in what he said, as I am sure most hon. Members were. On the other hand, I could not help being struck by the general thesis upon which he was working, namely, that so far as he could see Communism would become an impossibility in any collection of peoples which achieved a certain measure of education.
If that is so, what can we do to help in that respect? If that is so, what can we do to draw attention to the difference in the standard of education in this country and that standard which is permitted under any Communist régime? If I interpreted his speech correctly, I entirely agree that the whole beaming of our propaganda, and the placing of the facts before them—for that was the way in which he put it—should certainly be directed towards that end. I have felt for a very long time that the weakness of the development behind the Iron Curtain is that they must eventually become more fully aware of the far vaster opportunities offered to communities which are enabled to benefit by the knowledge which they have the capabilities to acquire. But do not let us forget the basic significance of what the hon. Member said. Communism can never thrive—I am not over-interpreting what the hon. Member said—in a community which achieves something beyond a certain rate of education and technical knowledge. I am not sure that I confine it to the one without the other being coupled with it.
The hon. Member for Pembroke was followed by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) who, I hope, will not object to my saying that

I thought he was trying to encourage the House to get a little off the beam. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not give the impression to the world as a whole that, at the moment, we are prepared to enter into an almost personal rapprochement with people who are still in a ghastly culpable position as regards their immediate actions in Hungary. Nothing could do more harm to the whole spirit of the peoples of the world than that we should give the impression of saying, "Forget all that; behind the scenes there are some decent people." The decent people are quite a long way from being in a position of control in the Soviet Union at the present time.

Mr. Parkin: It is just possible that many people over there might hold exactly the same views about the hon. Gentleman and his party. That might provide a position of equality which would make negotiation easier.

Sir I. Orr-Ewing: We were trying to discuss this matter very much on nonparty lines. It is a national problem. I do not think that in his quieter moments the hon. Member would claim—I certainly would not—that any one party in this House had a monopoly of skill which would enable it to talk to Russia any better than any other individual or party. I do not think that that would be a fair claim from either side of the House.
The great thing is to discover, if we can, whether there is an element at all which is capable of standing up to the type of interpretation of policy of which we have had the latest example in Hungary. Is it a slip, or a matter of principle? Until we do know, all I would say is, for heaven's sake let Her Majesty's Government be extremely careful not to give the free world the impression that we are prepared to talk to anybody, however much their hands may drip with blood.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: This debate is worth while, because everyone is filled with admiration of the people of Hungary in their great struggle for freedom and with sympathy for those who have suffered so terribly, especially the refugees. I ask the Government to be far more generous, both in the provision of money and in other ways, in dealing with this problem


than they have shown themselves to be up to now. First a gift of £25,000 and then a second gift of £25,000 in no way matches the generous response that has come voluntarily from the people of Britain in the matter of a few days. I hope that the Government will match the spirit of the people of Britain.
When we talk of taking some refugees and absorbing them in our industrial economy, let us be rather more broad minded than we have been. I was in Western Germany last December, and I then realised the full impact of the 10 million or 11 million refugees from Eastern Germany and territories such as Poland which Western Germany had absorbed in a very few years. This represents between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. of their previous population. I hope that the Government will be more generous in both these directions.

9.52 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): About two and a half hours ago now the whole House listened with considerable emotion to the eloquent description of the plight of the Hungarian people which was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price). Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have thanked him, as I should like to do, for having taken advantage of the Adjournment Motion tonight to raise this topic. He had the good fortune to raise this matter on an occasion when the ordinary business of the House ceased early, and we have had a very useful and interesting debate for nearly three hours.
The debate has shown that, whatever may be our views on other subjects, both sides have joined together in condemning the ruthless repression by the Soviet Army of a most gallant people whose only wish was to live in peace and to enjoy the freedoms which we in the West have perhaps come to take too much for granted. I have seen on the Order Paper, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh and many hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Motion in which they set forth their view of the situation in Hungary.
[That this House, in expressing its sincere admiration for the superlative courage of the Hungarian people, deeply

deplores the massive intervention of Soviet troops into Hungary and the subsequent barbarities perpetrated against the Hungarian people and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to demand, both at the United Nations and by direct contact, that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics withdraw its troops from Hungary, stop the deportation of Hungarians to Russian slave camps, permit United Nations observers to enter Hungary, and allow the establishment of basic human rights as guaranteed both in the United Nations Charter and in the Hungarian Peace Treaty of 1947.]
In addition to them, and all of us, the whole country has been profoundly moved by the horrors of the Soviet repression and the gallantry of a virtually unarmed people who have unanimously renounced the status of satellite. Even some members of the Communist Party, who have been long indoctrinated to swallow almost anything from headquarters in King Street and in Moscow, have been unable to stomach the lie that the Hungarian rising was the work of a few Facist reactionaries.
A number of speeches have been made, and if there are any points that I am unable to deal with in the debate, I will certainly look into them, and, where required, draw them to the attention of others who are concerned.
The hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger) mentioned "green frontiers." That reminded me of when I first met the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who was investigating this subject in the autumn of 1938. The refugees from Czechoslovakia were then starting a torrent which, as this latest episode has shown, is still going on. I am particularly pleased that the hon. Member for Goole should pay a personal tribute to the scrupulous regard of the Austrian Government to their neutrality. That is most important, and has been stressed by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd).
The hon. Member for Leicester, Northwest (Mr. Janner) raised the question of a certain sum of money which is in the control of the Swedish authorities. They have told us, the French and the United States, that, subject to the approval of their own Parliament, they intend to make


a donation of that money to the United Nations Refugee Emergency Fund, I must remind the House that that is a matter for the Swedish authorities, and they are giving consideration to it.
I think the hon. Members for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) and for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) will agree that their speeches went wide of the present debate, but I shall certainly look into the points which they made, particularly that made by the hon. Member for Pembroke, who asked whether we could do something through the British Council in order to improve contact with Eastern Europe. He may have noticed the Answer which I gave last week to a Parliamentary Question in which I said that the British Council is offering two scholarships to Polish students coming to this country. Although that may seem small compared with the figures we are talking about today, at least it is a start and it is the first time that an invitation has been issued to individuals from a satellite country.
I should like to pay tribute and praise to Mr. Fry, Her Majesty's Ambassador, and all his staff both British and Hungarian. For nearly a month now they have had a most strenuous and dangerous time. They have done superbly in maintaining British interests in that difficult period. A number of British subjects, including journalists, who took refuge in the Embassy can, from their personal knowledge, pay far more effective tribute than I can, to Mr. Fry and his staff for all that they have done.
In reply to particular points raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the situation as it is today, I should first remind the House of how matters stand at the United Nations. Resolutions have been passed calling for the cessation of Soviet intervention, for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary, for the restoration of human rights, for the admittance of United Nations observers, and for co-operation in relief.
In pursuance of those resolutions Mr. Hammerskjöld has suggested to the Hungarian Government that he should visit Budapest for discussions with them. So far the Hungarian Government have not agreed to that, but only to a meeting of Hungarian representatives with the Secretary-General in Rome. Mr. Hammerskjöld has rightly insisted on

the need for a meeting in Budapest, and in that insistence he has the full support of Her Majesty's Government.
The Secretary-General has appointed a team of very distinguished observers who are ready to go to Hungary. The Hungarian Government have so far refused to allow them to enter Hungary. If the Hungarian Government and their Soviet masters still persist in this refusal the whole world will draw its own conclusions.
The subject of Hungary is on the agenda of the current ordinary session of the General Assembly; in fact a meeting of the Assembly is being held today, with particular reference to the question of Soviet deportations. I fear, as all of us who read the Press fear, that there can be no doubt, in the light of a growing volume of evidence, that large-scale deportations of Hungarian men and women are taking place.
Another point which has been raised is about the status of Austria. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh asked whether Her Majesty's Government stand by Article II of the State Treaty, an obligation, I would remind the House, which the Soviet Government undertake as well—that is, to respect the independence and territorial integrity of Austria. We do, and with hon. Members on both sides of the House have paid tribute to the way in which the Austrians, for their part, have been scrupulous in maintaining their obligations and neutrality under this Treaty.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The House will join with me in paying tribute to their steadfastness and to the generosity and efficiency with which the Austria authorities have handled the reception of refugees from Hungary and the organisation of relief for that unhappy country. I have noted the remarks by hon. Members about the financial burden on Austria. That had already been realised by us, but I regret that I am not in a position at the moment to make any further statement on the point.
Several hon. Members raised the question of human rights and the Hungarian Peace Treaty of 1947, to which Her Majesty's Government were a signatory. I would remind the House that under Article 2 of this Treaty, Hungary undertook to secure to all persons under Hungarian jurisdiction the enjoyment of human rights and of fundamental freedoms. I should also like to remind the House that on 14th November Mr. Kadar, in a broadcast speech, accepted the principles of free and honest elections in which many parties would participate. We most fervently hope that that is a genuine indication of his Government's intention.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) and Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) and the hon. Member for Goole referred to the Council of Europe, which has rightly regarded developments in Hungary as matters which must affect Europe as a whole. While Her Majesty's Government do not in any way wish to discourage any initiative by the Council for sending observers to Hungary, we believe that action in this direction is even better if left to the United Nations which represents not Europe alone but the whole world.
I have been asked to say a word about a proposal to devote certain unspent funds in the Budget of the Council of Europe to the relief of Hungarian refugees. I understand that a decision on this matter is due to be taken on 3rd December, and although I cannot say whether an earlier meeting to consider it can be arranged, as many nations are involved, I will undertake to press those concerned to see whether earlier consideration can be given to this point.
Turning to action in the United Kingdom, I should like to point out that Her Majesty's Government have made available the not inconsiderable sum of £50,000 for distribution through the International Red Cross. Another £10,000 has been made available to the British Council for Aid to Refugees, which is co-ordinating the arrangement of the reception of Hungarian refugees in this country. The Government will also contribute to the fund for Hungarian relief set up by the Secretary-General for the United Nations. I am not in a position to state the amount of this contribution,

but the House may be sure that it will be worthy of the cause.
Nevertheless, as I am sure all hon. Members will agree, this is not a matter for the Government alone. The response of individual men and women throughout the country has been most encouraging and most impressive. Many organisations have taken part, and it would be invidious for me to mention any in particular. But according to the latest information which I have, the total sums raised by the principal appeals by the Lord Mayor of London, the Red Cross and other voluntary bodies amount to over £450,000.
I have been asked how far food and supplies are getting through. It has been reported in the Press that relief is beginning to get through from Austria into Hungary.
As the House is also aware, Her Majesty's Government have agreed to accept 2,500 refugees from Hungary into the United Kingdom. The first parties arrived the day before yesterday by air. We know that all concerned will do their best to make them feel quickly at home. I can assure hon. Members who have asked whether this figure could not be increased that the Government are giving this careful consideration. Refugees are still arriving in Austria. It has already been mentioned that their numbers are now believed to be as high as 32,000. We do not know how many more of these unfortunate people there may be, or how many other Governments will have offered them hospitality—or indeed, as the hon. Member for Goole has said, how many of those refugees want to come here.
In conclusion, may I say that the whole free world has watched with sympathy and admiration the incredible gallantry of the Hungarian people? Perhaps I should not confine this to the free world. As has been mentioned by certain hon. Members, and as was mentioned in an interesting article on the front page of the Manchester Guardian towards the end of last week, I cannot but believe that that gallantry may have had some effect on the Russian troops who have been destroying Budapest. We do not believe that they can have remained unmoved by the tragic massacres ordered by their high command. In the last ten years—since the end of the Second World War—we know of


nothing that has aroused such indignation and pity and, whatever may happen now and in the immediate future, the battle of Budapest, as the great centre of Hungary, will be inscribed forever in the story of the fight for freedom.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Before the Joint Under-Secretary of State finishes, may I ask him two questions? He spoke about the number of refugees going to different countries, and said that he had not information about that. Has he been in touch with the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration, in Geneva, which has, in fact, been organising and co-ordinating the movement of refugees from Austria? Could he get in contact and find out what is happening? I believe that that Committee has evoked offers from different countries to a total of 20,000, and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is high time we established proper contact with this very important body, which is dealing with this precise problem, and which could probably help us as well as the refugees.
Secondly, could he say something about the suggestion which arose out of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Dr. King) this afternoon? It might be very useful to hon. Members on both sides if we could have a White Paper, setting out a timetable of events in Hungary from the beginning of the first demonstrations to as late a date as possible before the White Paper appeared, showing what the Russians have said at different stages, what pledges

the different Governments of Gerö, Nagy and Kadar have made and so on. If he could do that we should be very grateful.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Before my hon. Friend answers those questions, I should like to say this. Whilst not for a moment decrying the efforts that individual countries have made to produce some alleviation of this problem, is it not the tragic fact that, apart from the individual efforts of the nations concerned, not one single part of one single clause of one single resolution of the United Nations had had any practical effect at all in deterring the Russians from what they have done in Hungary?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) that as far as I know, we are in touch with everyone concerned with refugees, but I will certainly look into what he has suggested and give him a categorical answer. I have before me a list of offers of assistance, from other countries, for refugees from Hungary, received from the London Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees.
As to a White Paper, I could not give an undertaking on that, because I think that what was suggested would mean putting down a lot of actions by other people, for which this Government have no ministerial responsibility.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Ten o'clock.